Is there a class conflict between irregular immigrants to the US and the US working class? And if US employers have no class conflict with irregular immigrants, wouldn't that make it a multi-sided class conflict?
Most irregular immigrants to the US are from central american countries and are running from insecurity or a lack of opportunities (and figure it's better to be poor in the US).
Besides, the defense of the interests of US companies in latin america by US officials has resulted in more poverty and insecurity than there otherwise would be; the US working class wants the profits from US companies taxed and invested on itself, or at least that's their class interest.
Which gives us a table of class interests:
US working class: -immigration, +defence of US interests
US employers: +immigration, +defence of US interests
Irregular immigrants: +immigration, -defence of US interests
They absolutely do, the very same conflict that they have with local workers and every other worker in the world. They are just better able to bend immigrants to their demands.
Yes, just as there has always been between yeoman and peasants, freemen and slaves, scabs and unionists.
And it isn't just illegal aliens (who make up a small fraction of total immigration, and a microscopic fraction of the total immigrant population at any time), but the overwhelming majority of legal immigrants (refugees sent to distant 1st-world nations included), who are admitted solely on the basis of undercutting native labor and destroying the 1st-world labor market with massive numbers and desperate poverty, in addition to creating insular underclasses of backward fundamentalists, and inflaming rightist agitation among native citizens.
In the other half of the equation, in the 3rd world itself, mass economic immigration is a placebo at best, due to the fact that even the most radically insane open-borders policy couldn't possibly ever eliminate or meaningfully decrease poverty in the 3rd-world. At worst, it enforces numerous ills such as brain drain, removing leftist agitators, and decreasing population pressure against increasing birthrates, with its only even slightly laudable contribution being remittances that would be utterly dwarfed by foreign aid by any sort of healthy 1st-world labor market.
The only solution is to close our borders to unregulated trade in both 3rd-world goods and 3rd-world slaves, enforce FairTrade mandates to eliminate the temptation of profit via human rights arbitrage, and rebuild both economies.
Oh, and I'll add one more point on something ambiguous you said The 1st-world proletariat has not benefited in any way whatsoever from offshoring and free trade, as any decrease in the price of commodities from 3rd-world regions such as Central/South America has been wholly offset by decreases in the median price of 1st-world labor.
This brain drain thing is a meme actually. Since the undeveloped world doesn't have the necessary infrastructure, the labs, the technology, etc and they can't really invest in science and technology since they always have more urgent needs other than "giving money to those nerds" then if the toppest brains stayed they would just be wasted anyway, so having the geniuses there or not doesn't really make much difference. This reminds me when someone says anything about poor countries on Zig Forums and they reply with "durr, just fix your country hurr", as if it was a simple matter of people just waking up someday and fixing everything and exploitation from the first world didn't existed nor imperialism nor material conditions, but obviously things are not just simple like that.
this. one of the goals of the 1st International was to end the use of foreign labor to break strikes. this is internationalism - using solidarity to stop workers from undercutting each other. today it's the opposite, and the left forcefeeds everyone pro-immigrant rhetoric.
"Brain drain" doesn't refer exclusively to the effect on scientists, or even just to highly educated specialists in broader STEM and beyond, but includes every variety of ambitious personality and recipient of capital. Get the fuck off my board
Then how did any country ever industrialize? The Soviets took a backward, illiterate, largely peasant society and turned it into a superpower within a few decades. Many "developing" or "third-world" countries DO have vast resources and the potential to build modern economies. China has / is achieving this right now. What many countries lack is good government and political will. I've seen it. There are places in Latin America with huge working populations, plenty of natural resources, and yet corruption and crime keep them from developing further. People would rather flee their country than work in a shithole where everyone is constantly trying to rob you or extort your business.
The US "working class" has absolutely no right to deny people the ability to migrate to their imperialist hellhole given that the American state has turned Latin America into a hellscape. Fuck socdems and reactionaries who say otherwise.
As bad as it ultimately turned out, I think the Arab Spring put the lie to this. In a mix of some of the poorest and richest countries in the world, against the most ruthless of dictators, and the most dedicated foreign meddling, popular mobilization showed what paper tigers the oppressors were.
Failure in every case simply came down to disunity and a lack of ideological rigor in popular consciousness.
Revolutions and reforms in the third world are pointless as long as imperialism exists. Even if mounting social pressure by keeping would-be emigrants trapped in an awful situation escalated into revolution, imperialists states would readily step in and crush it brutally to protect their interests. Any non-Maoist readily recognizes this, this is why the wave of revolutions in the second half of the 20th century lead to nothing.
Moreover, individuals owe nothing to any particular nation-state.
Without high immigrant quotas and unrestricted free trade, what would those be?
Foreign """"aid""" is laughable: It is incredibly small, it's in the form of projects to liberalize the markets, and even then it mostly end ups in the hands of the comprador bourgeoisie.
Remittances are both far bigger and far more effective at allievating poverty; Countries like El Salvador, Haiti and the Philippines depend on it and certainly couldn't substitute it with IMF """aid""" loans or the cents americans give to corrupt governments.
So you assume that third world countries will fix themselves through revolution caused by a few people trapped in a desperate situation, and that this will be allowed by the bourgeoisie? Have you seen how much punishment Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea have received by this?
To imagine that third world countries will automatically become better because some nurses and software engineers stay to be superexploited is pure idealism.
Allowing migration actually hurts burger imperialism because it actively destabilizes American internal politics, which is something that imperialist nations try to avoid with their foreign interventions.
The difference is large, but not incomparable. Whereas foreign aid totals $160B, remittances to the 3rd-world are $436B. For perspective, the budget of the US military, primarily justified by strife from our loathsome foreign policy, is $521T (minus off-DoD spending, which roughly doubles that figure).
As for fixing foreign aid, I usually think along the lines of a FairTrade-like "harmonization" mandate that any goods entering our borders have to meet or exceed our own industrial regulations and labor compensation norms, combined with foreign aid in the form of subsidies to a large amount of such imports. This would create bubbles of 1st-world conditions throughout the 3rd-world, particularly if certain countries were emphasized one after the other, endemic poverty and corruption could be permanently wiped out a country or region at a time.
It would certainly help, especially along with other reforms. Aside from that, terminating the perverse incentives that have fueled global neocon/neolib policies would strip away foreign meddling and weaken domestic porkies, making it drastically easier for the 3rd world to fix itself.
Destroying the America empire would make it far easier for socialist revolutionaries to succeed in their home countries. The simplest way to destroy America is to destabilize it's internal politics via immigration. Fuck America and its false promises. May it burn forever.
How so? All I can see is that it increases poverty, causes "leftists" to become even more class collaborationist, and inflames rightism. The only possible positive outcome I can imagine from the current wave of right-populism is the left pulling its head out of its ass on neoliberal positions including mass economic immigration, no other good could ever come of it.
Protip: Stop caring about America. The sooner it collapses or becomes so aggressively fascist that other imperialist powers have to invade and castrate it the better.
Why would they do that, especially since the very same neolib scheme is playing out simultaneously in Europe? Isn't it precisely what porky wants?
If America becomes expansionist and overly protectionist the entire America-centric neolib house of cards will collapse in on itself. The system will respond by slaughtering Amerifats and replacing their leaders with compliant cucks, much like what America did to other countries during the 20th century.
If transnational capital imploded after American (Or European, honestly Corbyn or Melancheon seem more genuinely likely to close the borders than Trump) isolationism, the result abroad would be too much disorder and civil war to touch us.
On the other hand, assuming the neolib/neocon areas could keep their shit together long enough to intervene here, aside from some sort of espionage subversion campaign (RIP USSR/PRC), superpowers can't actually invade each other in the atomic age.
How about big, fact NO
I like my neghole the way it is, thanks.
An anarchist would understand that between choosing lesser and bigger evils, the only correct choice is not choosing at all.
Russian empire at the time was third largest economy in the world. The Soviets only made it second largest with improving literacy from 60 percent to 100, and building factories. Smart policy, but not miraculous.
And to answer your question how did the west industrialize-colonialism. They toot their ideas of industrialization from proto-industrial nations like India and raw materials from Africa and Asia. China received a lot of initial funding from the Soviet Union and a lot of modern investments from the west. Many contemporary African,South American and Asian countries are still under colonial rule of Western and Chinese mega-corporations.
We need as many legal entanglements as possible heaped over capitalism, and as many legal protections as possible for us to stand upon.
Restricting the flow of scabs, and multiplying the leverage of organized labor, falls precisely within that prerogative. With each such step, their system becomes weaker, and ours stronger.
Only after tearing their nation loose from the talons of a backward monarchy that struggled with all its might to maintain rural serfdom.
What absolute maotist-turd-worldist bilge. They took as much from Europe as it did from them, the slow trade in ideas and armies washing back and forth across the Old World over millennia of sleepy pre-Enlightenment history wasn't one-way. When The Enlightenment happened, it was pure luck it happened in Europe, but that initial burst of science, secularism, republicanism, democracy, and indeed socialism gave it the jump it needed to blanket the planet.
Further, let's not forget two other facts. First, that some non-European powers such as the Ottomans and Japanese caught the wave of industrialization, surviving well into the modern era toe-to-toe with Europe. Second, that up until very recently in many cases, the indignities suffered by the average citizen in Europe were easily on par with colonial subjects then or the 3rd world today, but that changed as a direct result of successes in both violent and parliamentary revolt.
Stop using anarchist flag.
Next you are going to praise colonialism for building roads, and schools, right?
Incidentally, the above vid applies superbly to mass economic immigration shills' arguments all being recycled from the slave days.
No, you are just chosing what aspects you want to look at while ignoring the ones that you dislike.
I want to see the data on that.
I can acknowledge that a given system or event did good things, and praise those things. But if I feel the bad things it did eclipse them, or even that alternatives could have accomplished the same good with less or no attendant ills, I can quite certainly decry said system or event.
By the way that video is pretty laughable as is just an appeal to emotion. Romans built aqueducts you cannot be in favor of acueducts because the romans practised slavery so if you are in favor of aqueducts you are in favor of slavery. Romans wrote roman law, tou cannot think it's a great achievement because the romans practised slavery so if you are in favor of Roman law you are in favor of slavery. It's just a stupid appeal to emotion to writte off any acomplishments based in one especific point. It can be used also to selectively smear any group or endevour by nitpicking one aspect you don't like as disqualifying of any positive valoration.
Hello, Nirvana Fallacy.
Think of it sort of like art and celebrities. This works on two levels: Just because someone did something great, that doesn't necessarily mean anything else about them, including anything else they did, is any good. Just because someone is a bad person and/or did horrible things, doesn't mean certain things they did aren't good.
But the original affirmation was not Colonialism is great. It was Of course he can. You seem to pretend to completely writte off any accomplisments.
No, I'm just saying that it's irrelevant to whether colonialism was good, or even whether colonialism was necessary/useful/etc. A good contrast would be the debate between violent or peaceful revolution, since the sticking point is precisely that one of them is counterproductive or unavoidable.
Don't like illegal alien? Like not from space but another country, as in a citizen of a foreign country. Ok so no illegal alien. How about line jumper? But not even like a normal line jumper because we have places they can on top of already avoiding applying for citizenship are jumping the quick asylum line and just coming in on foot. Just to be clear though, you don't like illegal alien?
It does nothing to upset the so-called working class, except for maybe their precious feelings.
They weren't using those jobs, for the most part, and the introduction of migrants provides jobs for skilled workers.
And, regardless you can't be using the Zig Forumsyp dog whistle if your some border loving Nationalist.
To be frank, it's a miracle that any civilization actually industrialized, given the countless times crucial ideas like the steam engine were independently invented and ignored, or the fact that everything from the axle to the domesticated horse has been proven as the result of a single inventer that stumbled on it without dismissing it. Furthermore, the fact that essentially every pre-industrial civilization was some sort of bellicose expansionist, meant imperialism/colonialism was pretty much inevitably the only form that took.
No, I'm pointing out that since the crimes colonialism did weren't the only way we could've gotten its benefits (Note: if you think this paragraph contradicts the one above it, consider an alternative path not taken from primitive communism directly through anarchism to socialism, throughout pre-industrial history. Some precedent for what form this would have taken during the bronze & iron ages exists in certain civilizations throughout history), the benefits of colonialism can be dismissed when evaluating its crimes. For the same reason, the costs attendant to colonialism can be dismissed when evaluating the gifts bestowed on the world by colonialism.
Checks out. If that isn't Twitter-tankieism, it's accelerationism at best.
Interesting fact: Most illegal aliens aren't actually wetback fence jumpers, rather, over 2/3rds enter the country on legal visas, "drop out of the system", and overstay. Totally and obviously unrelated fact: In spite of autistic screeching about deportations and genocide camps from "leftists" and spic drug cartel commandoes air-dropping entire battalions of fieldhands behind our borders from "rightists", the total population of illegal aliens has held steady at ~10M ever since the mid-'90s, first pic related, almost as though it's some sort of phony scheme to apply downward pressure on legal immigrants, just like legals do to natives. Speaking of, second and third pics related, unlike illegal alienss, legal immigrants are a massive and growing problem with severe cumulative consequences.
>they work wages nobody wantsjobs americans don't want >h-1b house slave numbers skilled workers benefit from scabs
This is actually very simple. People in wealthy countries have no children. For capitalists to actually make money, someone has to actually, you know, buy their things. Over sufficient time, sub-replacement fertility, especially when it's as low as 1.3 in some European countries, causes problems for corporations, especially ones in more advanced countries for whom profit rates are closer to zero. Mexicans/Africans/Arabs primarily there to serve as replacement BUYERS. Providing cheap labor is a bonus for corporations, but as a matter of state policy (as in, keep the economy from melting down to stay in power) it is not really necessary, as we see from the Arab situation in Europe.