Women and Immigrants

So if the integration of women had even worse effects on the working class as immigration (increase of labor supply and the downward pressure on wages), why is one supported and the other opposed?
Was not women's liberation a generally bad thing for workers, unions and labor movements in general?

One could make the argument for both (as do liberals and incrementalists who see the breaking of borders in the same category as getting rid of all identities but class), or the argument against both (as Zig Forumsacks currently do and traditionalist communists did in the past), but is it not contradictory to be for one and against the other?

Attached: images(29).jpg (655x468 43.69 KB, 53.22K)

Other urls found in this thread:

economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of-free-movement-would-be-78-trillion-richer
archive.is/CXzWM
quillette.com/2017/08/27/argument-open-borders-liberal-hubris/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes, but unlike mass migration, the integration of women into the workforce did have positive benefits.

Nope, let me explain.

With migrant, they are driven away out of their home country, often with the smartest and most capable and most highly educated going first, to work in first world nations. This damages the development of their home country, this hinders that areas ability to develop and build infrastructure and industry. At the same time, it drives down wages in the first world, or wherever they immigrate to. It is an overall net negative. The immigrants are forced out, the people who they leave behind suffer from the braindrain, the target countries have an increased labour supply that drives down their ability to unionize. Nobody except the capitalists benefit.

Now for women entering the workforce, it is different. Immigrants in the first or third world, despite their differences in wealth, still have roughly the same position in society. Both work, sell their labour to capitalists, both receive income. Both weild power in their society through the forms of strikes and unions. But this is not the case with women and men having working and non working roles.
With women being housewives, they depend entirely on their husband for living, there is still money involved in this relationship. The women have to be subject to the man, because the man controls the income. This is a hierarchical relationship, wherein one of the parties has to sell their labour (housework, etc) to the other (the man). By abolishing this class-like relation, you abolish the subjugation of women to men, and you abolish the dominance of men over women. This is positive. Now, it also has negatives, as you mentioned. By introducing women to the workforce, they effectively doubled the labour supply. As a result, wages over time also dropped to half of what they were, because keep in mind, people get paid just enough to reproduce labour, ie not starve and not have their kids starve. Where in the past, one income could support one family, now two parents need to work to support one family. This is common knowledge, everyone experienced it, your parents no doubt would have told you they have to work more than their parents for the same kind of income. This is very negative. The better solution would have been to have both men and women work, at half the rate the man did before, but we all know that under capitalism, they demand the maximum working hours they can get out of people. Under capitalism, this is not possible, you cannot reduce working hours. In many first world places people work just as much as during the industrial revolution, pulling 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. 60 hour workweeks are not unheard of, and are quite common.

That is the difference. While women "liberation" certainly liberated both women and men from this harmful hierarchical relationship, it also doomed them to work more and more. There is a positive and a negative side to this. But with mass migration, there are no upsides. Braindrain destroy communities, it destroys unions and labour power in the richer countries, creates ethnic tension, etc, while not really making a meaningfull positive impact overall. The alternative to not liberating women can only be subjegation, which is negative, the alternative to no mass migration is peace and stability, which is positive.

It is interesting to point out that feminist-exclusive movements in the past were mostly comprised of bourgoies women, who are the only women who only received benefits from their liberation. They got to own property, they got to exploit workers, and be free, while working women were cast from one form of subjugation into another. Working class women had always fought side by side with working men to abolish capitalism, and socialist movements had always incorporated equality of the sexes.

Many countries, such as the Philippines or El Salvador, -depend- on remittances, and remittances are proven to be more effective than foreign aid. Their productive forces multiply by simply moving locations, sometimes dramatically; A manual laborer that moves from Haiti or Afghanistan can earn up to 20 times what he made doing exactly the same job in the United States.

Besides, the idea that knowledge is static and is completely untransferable is incorrect. Many companies in China , and much of the tech sector in India started because of the foreign funding made possible by the diaspora. Overseas chinese helped jumpstart Deng's industrialization plan due to their knowledge gained abroad and funding.

More to the point, would you not say that the benefit is the change in life of the immigrants themselves? Leaving aside all cultural issues, if we delve into theoretical scenarios, there are many radical (liberal) economists say that world be over two times as richer if freedom of movement and labor was enacted worldwide, due to the massive increase in productivity workers in more destitute countries would gain.
economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of-free-movement-would-be-78-trillion-richer

Attached: images(30).jpg (765x401, 33.62K)

while I understand the housework argument, Isn't the division of labor that the cult of domesticity engerndered actually increase efficieny? This whole idea of dividing housework between man and wife not only creates huge conflicts but it also as I see it decreases deficiency at which housework and childrearing is done. Its literally the worst of both worlds.

Thats because foreign aid in its form is shit. It is often food aid and things like that, not aid to build productive capability. Of course sending money to the population directly is more effective than giving rice or giving money to corrupt bourgeois governments.

And if there were to take their family with them, their cost of living would also rise 20 times. Their lives would be better, sure, because other goods are cheaper, but in the end they would still be effectively working on near poverty levels.

Massive funding also came from non-diaspora. No capitalist does things altruistically, a capitalist being chinese does not make them magically willing to throw money at china, at most they will understand the culture better and be more comfortable investing their money. Migration does not have much meaningfull impact on the host country, there are many places all over the world with diaspora whose home country are still dirt poor. India and china industrialized because of government policies, not because of altruistic former inhabitants.

The number of immigrants themselves are smaller than the population growth in said countries themselves. Transplanting a part of the population does not solve any structural inequalities, the small gains for the individual immigrants themselves far outweigh the negative impact mass migration has.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Productive forces are not build and then not used. All means of production are already operated by workers, there is a set amount of jobs in them. Doubling the number of workers does not make them doubly productive, they will have to compete over the same jobs, just like bringing women into the labour force did not double the wealth of working families. Saying that everybody would be magically richer overall if there were no borders is a simple lie meant to encourage mass migration.

By the way I cannot read your bourgoies article because of a paywall, but let me point out the subtitle is already hilarious
Ah yes, "disruptive". A bit of an understatement here. How are you going to bribe the vast right wing fascist movements that will spring up like we already see in europe in response to the migrant crisis, if you crank it up to 9000? We aren't going to see a magical increase in wealth, especially not for the workers, we are going to see ethnic cleansing on a scale of world war two or worse.

How does deviding the housework between men and women create "huge conflicts"?
Also if you only care about efficiency, then you might want to reevaluate being leftist in any sense of the word. Marxism explicitly talks about how more and more division of labour alienates people from both the product of their labour and from each other. We as leftists do not support anything in the name of efficiency.
Not that in the modern day and age, cleaning a floor or feeding a child is a matter of "efficiency", it takes vastly less time than it used to.

ITT: /lefty pol/ proves it really is just Zig Forums with red flags.

Here's the article in case you want to read it btw
archive.is/CXzWM
I thought it was interesting to get another perspective on the issue of immigration that wasn't based simply on cultural issues, islam scaremongering or moralism

Nice contribution, really doesnt say anything.

Oh boy I can already tell this article is a heap of shit, I will enjoy going over it. Thanks for sharing.

Also, the article itself mentions many ways the freedom of movement could be implemented; By making immigrants pay a special tax or not granting, by using the massive increase in GDP that will occur to fund social programs for the native countries, and so on.

We must remember that in practice this is what already occurs, undocumented immigrants already pay taxes for services they will never be able to use and the IRS encourages this.

But he is right. Just saying "abolish borders duuude, we don't need any kind of plan to deal with ethnic tensions or logistical issues, just tell people to be more welcoming lmao" is not gonna cut it if we go by experience.

Attached: zizek lewd face.jpg (397x230, 41.94K)

This is kind of a meme because the reserve army of labor technically always existed, it just wasn't utilized en masse until the wars. I see people blame feminism and women's rights for this and it's just silly.

The rest is true only in capitalist economies so to such systems, yes it can be considered a "bad" thing.

Why would they be revived? Nobody wants to pay for them. The only jobs he mentions that are difficult to fill are in social care. Although technically care work is “low skilled” it is not comparable to factory work, it requires a special kind of applicant who possesses the personal traits of empathy, diligence and agreeableness. Low standards in the UK in care work have resulted in horrifying case studies of incompetence, neglect and abuse.

Wow, sounds like paradise remember that the author is quoting the advocates of open borders themselves here

I shouldn't have to say that just like with outsourcing, middle class liberals tolerate it because they believe someone else will bear the burden of increased competition for work. Academics and pundits never imagine their own job being outsourced or going to a foreigner–hence the source of their "tolerance" for now
quillette.com/2017/08/27/argument-open-borders-liberal-hubris/


Just ignore fags like this. The whole point of the liberal establishment calling everyone who disagrees with immigration without limit a fascist is to produce fascists.
Probably true, but leftists who play this game are unwittingly allowing themselves to become easy marks for the establishment.

Attached: identitytheatre.png (115x150, 29.35K)

The constant negotiation between men and women over who does what task in what instances. This was the cause of many conflicts between my parents growing up. It's not just inefficiency but violence or domination of many kinds. A man can use his violence or the threat of it to shirk from housework (rare i admit nowadays), verbal intimidation or the one with the larger economic clout can coerce the other into doing more housework. It's not a simple matter of harmoniously sharing housework, for better or worse it's a constant negotiation that to me is a formula for emotional exhaustion or one submitting to the other. Also, division of labor need not be alienating. Marx if I'm not mistaken was talking about the excessive division of labor so that a factory worker is doing one single repetitive task like gluing heads onto dolls for 8 hours. Cruder divisions of labor have always existed and are not that bad. Just the sheer action of dividing one's time between house and work creates "time-waste" inherent in travelling and preparing for work. A man and wife doing so wastes more time. Now I may be creating an artificial divide between work and leisure common to capitalist logic, but if efficiency can be increased while preserving enjoyment of work and increasing free time I think it's a win-win situation.

Said capital is proportional the the labour supply. Capital needs workers to operate them, and there is no shortage of labour. A predictable legal system (lol as if) also relies on stability, which migration beyond the scale of the hunnic invasion might jeopardise.
There are not enough tractors for every dirt farmer in africa in the first world, not is there enough land that needs so many people driving tractors. You only need so many tractors per land area, and birgin farmland is not exactly in abundance anymore.
How many hairdressers do you honestly think rich people need? You can only cut your hair so many times. Seems like this article is neck deep in the infinite consumption and infinite growth ideology.

Nope, instead they will be enslaved by the farm owners like dutch farmers enslaved poles a few years back, keeping them locked up, in debt, not allowing them off the property and overcharging them for every day necessities to regain all of the illegally low wage they paid, as well as rapid and abusing the women.

Gee I wonder why

Absolute liberal idealistic idiocy. I hope I dont have to explain how it is the distribution of capital in one country as opposed to another that causes wage differences? If I do have to, please tell me, I would gladly explain it.

Exposzureeee
But much less severe? What do they even mean?

1/2

Attached: thonking.png (128x128, 10.64K)

Can't see that going wrong in any way.

Good standard to measure things by, a country with high income disparity itself and massive poverty and crime.

Big thonk

Ah yes, those unskilled native born workers can now do more lucrative work, such as, eh, healthcare. Oh wait.

Yay, even more skyscrapers and tiny boxes to live in. Cyberpunk is actually cool and hip you guys.

Big thonk. Really good at promoting your point here, article.

Ah yes, but enslavement wont happen you guys.

Solar system size thonk

Attached: thonksundestroystheearth.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

Cooking and cleaning is still and important task, especially the latter. Also child rearing is a very big obligations and relying on schools entirely for that is as I see it a recipe for disaster. Alternatively you have middle class families hiring immigrant nannies as mine did for house work and child rearing and I think that stunted me socially tbh.

Are you reading the same article as I am bruv? I litterally do not see anything you quote.
Just saying, I genuinly have a different article I think, from the same link.


OH wow huge conflict. Jesus dude, get a grip.
Bruv…

Nm im retarded, you commented on a different article

I don't understand what you're saying. There were gigantic labor shortages in the World Wars, so much so that government made unprecedented steps of bringing women into the labor force AND employing armies of immigrant labor (e.g. indian soldiers, 100k chinese laborers in WWI France to name just small examples). The reserve army was fundamentally insufficient clearly.

Just a general reply to the kinds of articles like in and
The way they talk about allow immigrants in but essentially not giving them any rights and shit, reminds me of some kind of weird article I read that said they should allow immigrants in on the condition that they are essentially owned as slaves for 20 years to get a greencard, like they used to do to convicts in england by sending them to the states to work as indentured servants.

The reserve army of labour did not really exist, unless you say that "people existing means they are reserve army of labour". They were not allowed to work, it was forbidden and shunned. The reserve army of labour only applies to the people actively looking for work at that moment. By your logic all children are also a reserve army of labour because if we abolished child labour laws they could work in factories. Thats not what the reserve army of labour is.

Integration of women => class consciousness grows 50% without any real work. Sure there was downward pressure on wages, BUT women were already working many jobs by the time they got workers' rights and the right to work any job they wanted. Likewise in this process women (along with men) voted to bar minors from working dangerous full time jobs, which caused wages and workers' rights in general to rise.

Immigrants is a different story, because they can be imported at any time capitalists feel like it whereas womens' suffrage was a one time event.

"Negotiation" isn't always a peaceful thing.
You're the one getting sentimental here, not me.
I'm putting forth a counter-argument for the sake of discussion. I don't think one is better than the other. I do think that there are severe problems with the current paradigm that are left unspoken because they touch on unpleasant realities. I was only using my own experience as an example, and no my parents aren't as bad as I let on but growing up wasn't perfect either.

maybe melodramatic or hysterical is a better word*

Agreeing who does the laundry on what day is not a huge conflict unless you are dysfunctional. But if you are dysfunctional everything becomes a huge conflict, and your dad would just beat up your mom because dinner wasnt tasty enough or the floor was dirty.

It does when overwork comes and traffic congestion comes into play and children are lacking in any parental authority. This is what happens in Japan where fathers dedicate all their times to the company or their job and the mothers are left with working and raising children, to the neglect of the latter. Then again Japan was and is especially notorious for its economic gender segregation.

Well, the system worked, didn't it? Lots of people took it; Clearly indentured servitude was preferable to starving to death in Ireland.

And if today, immigrants were allowed in on some sort of indentured servitude (such as military recruiting, farm work, academic researchers and teaching assistants with below min.wage pay, or so on), I am sure many would take it because it would be preferable to the conditions in their country.

Eh, bruv, when you got convicted of minor crimes you were punished by being turned into an indentured servant. It was not voluntary. People could migrate to the states freely if they wished to do so and could pay for the trip.

Women have always been in the workforce though.

As a Muslim communist I fully agree with you.

Feminism has always been anti-labor for the reasons you've described, but moreso it's toxic because it destroys the upbringing of children. With women working outside the home it creates an unbearably unstable home environment for the kids, which leads to things like "TV as a babysitter", kids becoming hooked on consumer items to fill the void of mom and dad, etc. In communism, we would have to preserve the family, since you cannot raise children with communist values without strong parental figures. A true communist system wouldn't abolish gender roles but honor a woman's innate femininity and commitment to housework as part of the greater socialist project, similar to what Islam does.

True fact: it's against Islamic Law for Muslims to migrate to non-Muslim countries solely for the sake of economics. All the Moroccans and Algerians in France, Pakistanis and Somalis in the UK, Palestinians and Turks in Germany, Syrian refugees, etc. are borderline apostates. The only exceptions are Muslims in Iberia and Greece/Balkans since those lands were originally Muslim ones.

There are plenty of reasons why socialists should oppose immigration aside from labor issues. There's also the fact that socialism can't work in countries where you have competing sets of values. Look at the USSR for instance: it was very diverse ethnically and religiously HOWEVER each ethnic group was given its own republic whereby they didn't have to integrate with other ethnic groups and could go about their own cultural values with little interference. It's almost akin to the millet system of the Ottoman Empire, which was also a success for the same reasons.

If America were to become socialist, there is no doubt its existing state borders would be done away with and replaced with borders which more accurately represent the existing population. So for instance, you'd see the Black Belt from Philadelphia to Atlanta to St. Louis become its own independent state, the American southwest along with Florida become its own Latino state, various Native American reservations like the Lakota-Sioux, Blackfoot, Cherokee, and Navajo nations become their own states, the Muslim-majority parts of the Midwest (Detroit to Chicago) become an Islamic state, oh hell even the Italian Belt ranging from southern New Hampshire to South Jersey could become its own state. This would be a much better option since it would avoid cultural conflict. Although I do agree we'd have to figure out what to do with Utah since it's technically part of Mexico even though it's full of white Scandinavian Mormons.

that sounds awful. it doesn't take into account demographic and cultural change at all. Most of the soviet republics had russian majorities in them ironically enough

But they had a policy of cultural separation, which is the only way to resolve conflicts relating to culture. It's no different than what the Ottomans did with their religious minorities.

For example, in the OE there were some places where Muslims were forbidden to live in order to ensure the Christian, Jewish, or Druze populations would be able to go about things their own way. Baghdad and Salonika were almost entirely Jewish before European influence. Other towns and cities were exclusively Christian. And religious and ethnic conflicts barely existed. This is a much more progressive way of handling the issue of national liberation than forceful integration.

Now that's a lie if I've ever read one.

No it's true. How many Palestinian doctors does Boston or Toronto need when nearly all of Gaza is unable to get adequate medical care? Plus, bringing in loads of migrants from the 3rd World to the 1st causes the minds and souls of 3rd Worlders to become colonized by 1st World ideology, stripping them of their spiritual essence and desire to resist oppression. Do we really need a bunch of lazy and obese brown folk at the Roxbury masjid? Or do we need the best and brightest of the 3rdW to stay where they are and fight imperialism where it matters?

There are arguments to be made about immigration under capitalism but opposing it on racial and cultural grounds is brainlet-tier

Attached: 09926cf6eea14ac61c893557f401da0a01325d6db92a4f126207129157c53ab0.jpg (339x500, 41.77K)

Not that guy but this is nothing but pure idealism.
Dude, you can't do anything as an irrelevant 3rd worlder. What would could I do if I stay? Workers that protest get put down by the state forces and all the politicians and union leaders are bought. And there are no jobs for doctora and scientista that stay. Will Israel give concessions to Palestine if they knew they have mathematicians, astronomists and neurologists? Will Bangladesh become a developed and modern nation that will shake off India and China and achieve fully automated luxury communism if some programmers stay? I really don't fucking think so.

And moreover, people have self-interests and they are going to live where they can have a better life. This is a materialist truth.

It's obvious you haven't been in a position like that.

I'm speaking from a purely Islamic perspective. Able-bodied Palestinian males are violating shariah by leaving Palestine to study/work abroad, because their people are in the middle of fighting a genocidal occupation, and according to shariah all able-bodied young men are REQUIRED to stay and fight in a war. You are a coward (and apostate) for doing otherwise.

you're forgetting the part about ethnic caste systems subjugating alawites to sunnis and maronite christians to druze and of course the armenian genocide. I think you're idealizing the millet system and also forgetting that sunni muslims were on top of the hierarchy despite everything.

European hierarchies were way worse. Armenian Genocide had nothing to do with the Ottoman system or Islam but was done by secular nationalists.

Aren't you basically saying that refugees are bad for the host country? Fuck off.

Why hasn't this reactionary fuckstain been banned yet?

Unlike the USSR, the population in the USA is very much geographically mixed, despite living as separate ethnic groups in their own communities. You cannot just draw lines in the sand unless you actually want 2-street sized states.


The smartest and most capable have the means to leave. They either have money or have a job lined up that allowed them to get into debt to make the trip.


Refugees are not economic migrants. Though both would benefit more from developing and making their home countries safe, rather than having to uproot their lives to escape war or poverty.

Attached: disgust.png (600x378, 93.23K)

Wanted to add:
Keep in mind that not all third or second world countries are wartorn hellholes with no means to communicate. There are many highly educated iranians and chinese who studies abroad in the west and then move to the west permanently after being offered a job. They do not improve their home country with their expertise this way.

Also take into account this is why the image of Iranians (or "Persians") Americans and Canadians have is of ultra-socially liberal types who love to drink and party and who hate the Islamic Republic with a passion. In Iran, most Iranians are actually quite conservative Shias who live in the rural countryside rather than the elite urban centers. It's not uncommon to see full-blown burqas in the Iranian countryside, all while blue jeans are super-common in Tehran.

Same goes for arabs. Most arabs in the americas are quite rich and well educated, while most arabs in europe are uneducated unskilled workers, or children thereof.
Goes the other way too, any mexican in europe is going to be highly educated, not an immigrant unskilled worker.

Why is everyone ITT assuming that people "owe" anything to their country?
That's some reactionary nationalist garbage. To begin with, nations are spooks made up to facilitate exploitation by the bourgeoisie. And individuals do not have any obligation to put their rational self-interest in the service of spooks, and certainly not for the benefit of the bourgeois state.

Attached: 1522670970233.jpg (540x810, 137.47K)

By this logic why would I fight for communism? Fuck my country, fuck the people in my country its all spooks amirite?

Honestly, yes. You are not going to win hearts and minds by framing it as a moral fight against the evil capitalists; Communism first and foremost is about reclaiming what is yours: Your labor, and the ability to get it's full value, and to restructure society so resources are used more efficiently.
Rational self-interest is at the center of communism, it is not a movement of martyrs asking for self-sacrifice in the name of ideals, otherwise it wouldn't be any different from other religions.

And if this rational self-interest is more important than a noble ideal like communism, it definitely is FAR more important than the bourgeois state and it's sustaining ideology. If they have the means to avoid it, how can anyone be expected to sacrifice themselves for the tool of their own oppression? How can you ask Iranian women engineers to work for a country that doesn't even recognize them as people? How can you ask chinese people to subject their children to the psychological hell that is chinese education in the name of the distant CCP that assigns a numerical value to their life? How can you ask mexican peasants to work for 7 dollars a day in some in the name of a militaristic state that shoots labor protesters when they can be far better paid in America?

In short, if some people argue that immigration under capitalism is harmful, I say that emigration under capitalism is completely justified as there is no reason to fight for the ideology of bourgeois states.