Is capitalism the force responsible for declining birthrates and replacement migration? If so...

Is capitalism the force responsible for declining birthrates and replacement migration? If so, can anyone convince me as to why it's capitalism rather than cultural and moral degradation as conservative and reactionaries profess?

Attached: 1544392750309.png (640x640, 243.52K)

Declining birthrates is a necessary fact of women having access to education being more free generally. Obviously capitalists have an interest in bringing in more labor to keep costs low, but how is that "replacement migration" rather than ordinary immigration?

idk but the insane corporate culture that goes on in Japan seems to indicate that. the amount of porn that flows around to feed the isolation doesn't help so I'd say yeah
simple. turning the job market into a buyer's market (supply > demand) means cheap labor. more workers = more cheap labor
because even if or when conservatives/reactionaries achieve their fascist ideal utopias, it declines back into liberal capitalism anyway. peep Francoist Spain and McCarthyist America.

It's 'replacement' migration because birthrates in the developed world have declined to the extent that the population therein is falling, meaning the migrants brought in are actively 'replacing' the native population that is dying off.


To some extent, this is true. But it is a sign internal contradictions in the system when birthrates are falling so rapidly and in such a dysgenic way. Women having freedom shouldn't lead to a demographic catastrophe, if it does then the natural order of our species must essentially be patriarchy for societies to flourish.

it literally about access to abortion and birth control and literally nothing else

even places like Iran dip below replacement as soon as abortion is allowed

ignore the Pol Pot larping moron. he knows nothing about women let alone birthrates.
they are many factors but women having freedom isn't one of them, otherwise our species would have never left primacy.

t. not Zig Forums

Statistically verifiable considering all of the eastern bloc states suffered a drastic decline in birthrates.
"Replacement" is a myth: porky doesn't care if immigrants are white, asian or black: as long as they work & they can beat them down. Also the concept of ethnic displacement in my country is kinda BS since there isn't really an ethnicity.
t. Brit
With regards to Birthrates it is obvious considering the spectrum of social policy with regards to things like the family, and feminism. Take for example two states: The DDR and Romania. The DDR had quite a progressive policy towards issues like contraception, abortion, and the role of women. The pill was widely available, abortion on demand was legal since 1972 (both of these on free at the point of use healthcare systems also), and women weren't encouraged to have children by the state directly, although there was a wide social net for when they did (like union-attached crechés for example). The DDR also had a very liberal sexual culture (which the SED disapproved of but did/could do fuck all to stop): which included nudism and other features (although access to porn was v limited). Romania was pretty-much the opposite of this: abortion was illegal, contraception was effectively unfindable, women who could not take care of their children had them put into orphanages (Irish stylé). Yet in both of these cases birth rates were higher than the west, and suffered immense declines following the end of Marxism-Leninism from which they have not recovered. Heck even when the USSR removed its "ban" in 1985 (that topic is a thing unto itself) birth rates didn't change that much until the 1990s when the economic system changed. So you have these wildly different social spectrums, with different governmental policy, different religions, histories ect. ect. but the common factor across their collapse in birth rates was the radical change in economic system.

Humans are garbage anyway, this is good.

Not true, abortion was introduced in the DDR and the fertility rate effectively did not change.

Thank you for the answer. I thought the eastern bloc itself was suffering from a demographic crisis pre the 90s, but looking at the graphs and statistics it was the 90s shock that really threw things out, damn, Russia's population dropped a full 10million. Material circumstances really are no joke.

Just as a note, I'm not at all thinking replacement migration is a racially driven thing and something specifically done against europeans. It's happening to the Japanese and many east asian countries as well, for example. I just see the phenomenon as catastrophic and would appreciate discussion on it that doesn't resort of Zig Forums talking points of 'da jews'.

Big capitalists are generally in favor of immigration reform. In the case of the U.S., there simply are not enough Americans to do all the work and sufficiently satisfy profit hunger. Immigrant labor is also much cheaper than domestic labor, and often insecure. For example, the Business Roundtable, an association of the executives of the 200 or so largest corporations in the U.S., frequently speak out in favor of guest worker programs and other immigration reform, as does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a myriad of other organizations that represent the interests of the big capitalists.

One example of the dynamics of capitalism and immigration, with NAFTA removing tariffs and so on, U.S. big capitalists moved many domestic industries to Mexico, as their labor was much cheaper and they had far fewer regulations, increasing the rate at which profit was accumulated. It also meant that for example, subsidized U.S. corn poured into Mexico without any tariffs, and destroyed Mexican farming jobs. Many Mexicans would then go North in search for better conditions and work.

You cannot go back in time. Capitalism is necessarily global, as growth is its lifeblood.

I wonder if it had anything to do with having the time to be able to be human in the DDR, as opposed to wage slavery.

Well depends what you define as East Asian: Malaya, Indonesia ect are industrialising so their multicultural societies are still in a period of great flux.
As for say the Four Asian tigers; I am pretty sure they have heavy anti-immigration laws (in fact Japan signed on recently to make immigration far more difficult).
As for migration and its impacts, well it is a double edged sword. What seems catastrophic at the time in retrospect is fucking nothing. Take the Irish for example. I'm British. During the 1840s to 1890s there was a COLOSSAL wave of Irish immigration to Great Britain. Like to put it into perspective, because of this Liverpool was so catholic that an Anglican cathedral wasn't started until 1904 and it was finished in 1978. The lack of Anglicanism to this extent was almost purely because of Irish immigration during this period (when Liverpool was developing into a city in its own right). Now could this be considered a replacement? Perhaps, but also like it's not like you walk around Liverpool today and find "Irish Ghettos" or there is ethnic tension because of "catholic immigration". A lot of issues with immigrant ghettos and social cohesion are a result of bad municipal and governmental policy: not a feature in of itself. Now I am not supportive of mass immigration: the influx of labour should be dependent on need, but having a mother who worked in a field with regards to integration (teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language) the support just does not exist. With such support, within 3 generations an immigrant is no different from a local: regardless of origin.

Well I think a lot of it has to do with the social structures that existed for families: as I said crechés were organised for working women through trade unions so you could go to work and have kids. With that you don't put it off and the nature of having a family is a lot more organic than having to do it based on financial constraints. I mean the same thing existed in the West during the social democratic consensus, its neoliberalism that killed this kind of social net.

But there are still huge numbers of the "native population" left in the first world. There are certainly more than enough white people to maintain a stable population.

It's really only a catastrophe for the capitalist class. If the population shrinks or stays the same, it takes pressure off of nature and frees up space for the rest of humanity.


Women in modern society don't need men to survive.

Or I should say, don't need to reproduce with men in order to survive.

Oh also white populations in the west are WAY higher than both natives and outsiders think. England (not the UK, not GB, England) is 80% White British (just british, not even Irish). This is meant to be the nation of SHANIA TWAIN NO GO ZONES: and 92% of people speak English as L1. Replacement isn't happen to any significant degree.

it's already happening you chucklefuck, entire cities are already brown Islamic shitholes

The said the same about the Irish in Liverpool…

the Irish everywhere, actually… really makes you think

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (870x720, 386.28K)

Also
That made me kek, not sure how being compared to Paul and Barry (RIP) is an insult but w/e.

Keep embarrassing yourself

Declining birthrates are the result of both increased childhood survival making a large number of children in a family unnecessary and a lack of time to raise them because of economic pressure that are undeniably the fault of capitalism. The mass migration is the result of western capitalist countries invading and destroying functional societies that don't tow the geopolitical line for the creation of a global order that allows free flow of capital across all borders unimpeded. Bourgies don't mind this because destitute immigrants will work for lower wages because of their desperation, making them preferable employees, thereby creating downward pressure on wages generally, which allows for greater profits for the business owners at the expense of the living standard for most of society.

The neoliberal elite are pretty fucking open about why all of this is happening, they just try to spin it as good for everyone when the data shows that most people are being adversely affected by their interventionism, austerity, and deregulatory agendas. Even if it wasn't transparent, there are simply too many benefits being reaped by capital by the issues you're concerned with for it to be coincidence. The (American) conservatives whining about mass migration are especially funny since their militaristic interventionist ideology is the cause of the refugee crisis in the first place.

Capitalists want you to spend your money on traveling, clothing, gadgets, restaurants…not fucking kids.
Capitalists want you to abandon your parents in a retirement home, not to take care of them for the remaining years of their lifes.

huh, you're being dumb.

Attached: 960x0.jpg (960x640, 119.85K)

Uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh….Good?

No and only in a shithole like this would you imagine such a thing.

Stop responding to this troll. He keeps making these "I'm dumber than your mom's cunt, convince me global capitalism isn't a Marxist plot" -threads, and you people keep feeding him.

why aren't you fuckers saging this trololo

Declining birthrates and replacement migration are negative only to the big capitals in a capitalist society. Why would less people being born be a direct negative to the average joe like yourself?

Also

Culture is a fucking meme

I'm gonna drop a fact here: literally everything bad is because of capitalism, and that is not an exaggeration. It would take too long to explain, but trust me.

You know, I've almost never talked to a young person who'd say "I don't want to have children, I'd rather party and shit". People who think that are a fringe minority, and I bet they usually grow out of it. The vast majority of average working class people want to have children eventually, it's just getting harder and harder to sustain a family with each passing year as the price of living/rent goes up and wages go down. It has everything to do with economics and almost nothing with "declining mores". Of course if you spend all day on Zig Forums raging at cherrypicked bourgie instagram hoes you may feel differently, but that isn't representative of real society (that we live in)

Imperialism forcing people to move from the periphery to the center either with spiraling inequality or by literally bombing their homes, I can't even begin to understand what mental gymnastics are required to claim that immigration is caused by "moral degradation"

I think maybe you are conflating capitalism with corporate cronyism, which is 100% bad.

there's no difference

Just chiming in to mention that Singapore, one of the Asian Tigers, has a replacement programme in place, tuned to maintain the current ethnic makeup of Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Everyone Else. I think the stated goal is 15 to 25 thousand new citizens (and 30k permanent residents) a year, out of a resident population of 3.8 million. It's not terribly popular; when the government announced plans to ramp it up, the largest opposition party actually gained a tiny handful of seats, which is fucking seismic in scale here. We're also hugely reliant on a vast army of systematically underpaid and abuser transient labour.