Japan surrenders to immigration

[Infected Mushroom]

I believe the argument advanced is that the VERY NOTION of the non-natives being allowed to enter (at all)... drives down the wages of the working class, empowers the elites (to continue exploiting the entire world), and gives the elites more space and time to consolidate (since the newcomers will be "satisfied" for a while with the first world conditions because they are still better than the more horrendous levels back home)

if you're looking to assimilate them, you're already playing on a back footing

your movement is more powerful without them entering at all

More powerful immediately, yes, but a lot less humane than it should be. I can see the raw, cynical pragmatism of it, but I also wipe my ass with it.

what good is "humanity" if it ultimately enables and allows for the continued Exploitation of larger numbers of people globally while weakening/dividing the politicised labor class of your own nation (I mean, the immigrants are very unlikely to be in any hurry to join your movement since they're "more satisfied" with what they have then what they HAD... and its going to make the situation in your country seem less severe when its in fact Exploitation)?

[Liriena]

You are acting as if it's one of the other: support immigrants' rights or support labour rights. That's not a real dichotomy. I can and so support doing both - opening the borders to immigration and improving the work and living conditions of young Japanese people. Even if they don't both occur simultaneously, I can still support the one that happens first.

Immigration is a symptom of capitalism. There is no need to support it and the problems it causes. Helping the young japanese first and foremost will increase the power of the workers and their share of influence. Then their country, and ours in the west, can stop fucking over the third world so much.

You are supporting something that makes the overall system more difficult to change.

Immigration is affected by capitalism, but it's not an invention of it, nor can you turn the clock back to an imaginary era in which every nation-state's population remained perfectly static within its own borders.

Also, this must be the first time I see you express anti-western sentiments. Nice to see that your repetitive whining about how the left needs to stop hating on "the west" doesn't apply to you if you're doing it to own the immigrants.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, i'll try this once more.

Do you think a major nation becoming socialist and anti-capitalist would have more of a positive effect on the workers of the world than them remaining capitalist and allowing immigrants would?

Why are these the options? You haven't explained why a socialist state can't also embrace open borders. Until you establish why we should accept these as our two options, this is a strawman.

A socialist state probably could, yes. But a socialist movement within a capitalist state should oppose them in order to drive up the bargaining power of Labour.

[Saiwania]

More powerful immediately, yes, but a lot less humane than it should be. I can see the raw, cynical pragmatism of it, but I also wipe my ass with it.

We don't or shouldn't owe these people anything just for existing. I don't see all of those developing countries being "humane" to us developed nations. All those poor countries ever do is cause problems for the developed nations with their incessant demands for foreign aid to shield them from their failure or mismanagement of resources.

[Ostroeuropa]

Immigration is a symptom of capitalism. There is no need to support it and the problems it causes. Helping the young japanese first and foremost will increase the power of the workers and their share of influence. Then their country, and ours in the west, can stop fucking over the third world so much.

You are supporting something that makes the overall system more difficult to change.

Immigration is affected by capitalism, but it's not an invention of it, nor can you turn the clock back to an imaginary era in which every nation-state's population remained perfectly static within its own borders.

Also, this must be the first time I see you express anti-western sentiments. Nice to see that your repetitive whining about how the left needs to stop hating on "the west" doesn't apply to you if you're doing it to own the immigrants.

This is not anti-western. It is anti-capitalist and i've been critical of neo-imperialism before and how it fucks over everybody. Including how the capitalist elite use immigration and identity politics in the west to pull the same shenanigans they did in the colonies ala pitting hindus against muslims and so on.

[Sciongrad]

Imagine knowing this little about economics.

That's pretty rude and condescending. Perhaps u should be a bit kinder to people huh?

Maybe some people put in the teensiest amount of effort in learning what they're talking about before they advocate for a policy that would wreak havoc on the lives of millions?

[Liriena]

More powerful immediately, yes, but a lot less humane than it should be. I can see the raw, cynical pragmatism of it, but I also wipe my ass with it.

It is not humane to up and decide to arm hostage takers...

[sighs in tired of stupid analogies]

[Ostroeuropa]

More powerful immediately, yes, but a lot less humane than it should be. I can see the raw, cynical pragmatism of it, but I also wipe my ass with it.

We don't or shouldn't owe these people anything just for existing. I don't see all of those developing countries being "humane" to us developed nations. All those poor countries ever do is cause problems for the developed nations with their incessant demands for foreign aid to shield them from their failure or mismanagement of resources.

The foreign aid budget in the hands of a capitalist state is a bribery slush fund. We'd be better served by an international cooperative fund that gave out grants and loans to workers to form socialist businesses.

[Shofercia]

Hmm, this could be a good pick up line at a bar:

"Baby, are you Patriotic?"
"Yes!"
"Do you believe that America should be populated by Americans?"
"Yes!"
"Would you like to contribute to it with me?"
"Yes!"
"Your place or mine?"

You can have me with that one,

So let's start with the basics - your state, or my state of Commiefornia

(I pay the taxes, I can say that)

[Ostroeuropa]

It is not humane to up and decide to arm hostage takers...

[sighs in tired of stupid analogies]

The point is you're focused on the individual migrant escaping a miserable condition rather than looking to the fastest route to end that miserable condition.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

The paradox whereby developed nations destroy themselves by having few children, while underdeveloped countries have a huge excess of children in spite of their circumstances, is certainly interesting.

[Ostroeuropa]

The paradox whereby developed nations destroy themselves by having few children, while underdeveloped countries have a huge excess of children in spite of their circumstances, is certainly interesting.

Birth rates are declining across the world. There was a lag where undeveloped nations bred more than developed ones, but they are slowly falling into the same situation. They won't be able to exploit this because capitalist governments in major nations will fuck them over for trying.

We can up and decide that a socialist in Kenya needs to be gotten rid of. A socialist in France is a problem that requires a cold war to solve.

[Hatterleigh]

That's pretty rude and condescending. Perhaps u should be a bit kinder to people huh?

Maybe some people put in the teensiest amount of effort in learning what they're talking about before they advocate for a policy that would wreak havoc on the lives of millions?

Maybe instead of being rude and condescending u can actually discuss what they said with them and change their mind or see why they believe what they believe?

[Sciongrad]

The paradox whereby developed nations destroy themselves by having few children, while underdeveloped countries have a huge excess of children in spite of their circumstances, is certainly interesting.

It's all about the individual incentives for child-rearing. In a "developed" western capitalist economy, having children is largely an affective decision, and widespread access to wage labor disincentivized having many children. In "developing" economies, children often serve as labor units for families, and therefore families are incentivized to have more children. For a more comprehensive argument, read "The Myth of Population Control" by Mahmoud Mamdani.

See: Demographic Transition.

[Shofercia]

I find it interesting how quick people segue from "I'm not racist" to "immigration destroys culture" and back again.

Mass immigration destroys culture. Immigration is like sugar; it's good for the country in low quantities, and bad for the country in high quantities. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Germany, before an influx of immigrants:

Germany after an influx of immigrants:

See the difference? Some sugar is good. A lot of sugar is bad.

[Liriena]

I strongly disagree... and I still think your hot take can be added to the pile of reasons why I'm increasingly skeptic of your supposed leftism.

Right, i'll try this once more.

Do you think a major nation becoming socialist and anti-capitalist would have more of a positive effect on the workers of the world than them remaining capitalist and allowing immigrants would?

Let's suppose they're everything you say they are even. Racist, wanting their borders closed because ew blacks, even all of that. I'll grant it.

But they still support workers internationally and go to bat for them.

Is that preferable?

Yes and no. Also, I feel like the more you press on this dichotomy, the closer you get to engaging in fascism apologia and I'm already preparing my soundtrack for it.

[VoVoDoCo]

From what I know, Japanese people are proud of their country and their culture.

Actually, Patriotism is pretty low in Japan.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... war-japan/

I do agree with however that it's irrelevant. The OP is advocating for increased patriotism and increased birth rates, as if women are going "I don't love my country enough to fuck without contraceptives."

[Oil exporting People]

Once again, I'll repeat there is no logical argument for general immigration.

1) When 50% of jobs might be automated within this generation, how does importing millions of additional workers and possible future welfare beneficiaries make sense?

2) How does taking the best and brightest from the Third World, in effect a brain drain on those economies, help them to be better off? You're just continuing the exploitation with no real payback as outlined above.

[Liriena]

I find it interesting how quick people segue from "I'm not racist" to "immigration destroys culture" and back again.

Mass immigration destroys culture. Immigration is like sugar; it's good for the country in low quantities, and bad for the country in high quantities. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Germany, before an influx of immigrants:

Germany after an influx of immigrants:

See the difference? Some sugar is good. A lot of sugar is bad.

...that's the stupidest way you could have made that argument, so I can only imagine you were being sarcastic.

[Costa Fierro]

If anything the problem might actually be men, or at least be associated with men. In the current economic climate it is becoming increasingly difficult for Japanese men to find steady and well-paid work; meaning that they put off having children until they are much older, resulting in less children or none at all.

Not true at all.

Japanese work culture means that women who enter the workforce can stay in the workforce if they don't have children. If they do, they're expected to stay at home and raise children themselves while their husbands work. And when you consider that Japanese working culture (not unlike that of other nations in East Asia) can literally work people to death, it's not surprising that many men simply do not want to live that kind if lifestyle, and are either avoiding having children or avoiding marriage entirely.

[Sciongrad]

I find it interesting how quick people segue from "I'm not racist" to "immigration destroys culture" and back again.

Mass immigration destroys culture. Immigration is like sugar; it's good for the country in low quantities, and bad for the country in high quantities. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Germany, before an influx of immigrants:

Germany after an influx of immigrants:

See the difference? Some sugar is good. A lot of sugar is bad.

How does this constitute an argument? When were these pictures taken? You don't provide evidence that the second picture and the first picture depict people whose views changed over time, as opposed to people who initially thought and continue to think what you show in the pictures. To make an argument that immigration is bad for a society, you need to provide evidence that society is somehow harmed by mass immigration. Two dateless pictures that may not be representative of the population are not evidence.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, i'll try this once more.

Do you think a major nation becoming socialist and anti-capitalist would have more of a positive effect on the workers of the world than them remaining capitalist and allowing immigrants would?

Let's suppose they're everything you say they are even. Racist, wanting their borders closed because ew blacks, even all of that. I'll grant it.

But they still support workers internationally and go to bat for them.

Is that preferable?

Yes and no. Also, I feel like the more you press on this dichotomy, the closer you get to engaging in fascism apologia and I'm already preparing my soundtrack for it.

Fascists aren't internationally pro-worker and support hierarchical relationships between nations. The issue of authoritarianism is a separate matter, and preferably wouldn't be present. Militarism is not desirable. There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting.

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

[Liriena]

[sighs in tired of stupid analogies]

The point is you're focused on the individual migrant escaping a miserable condition rather than looking to the fastest route to end that miserable condition.

"Fastest" doesn't mean best. There's a limit to how "pragmatic" I'm willing to be for the sake of the ultimate goals of the left. It's the same reason why I'm not a huge Fidel Castro fan despite the fact that you could make an argument for his approach being a lot more effective at advancing the ultimate goals of the left than, say, the British Labour Party ever was.

[Hatterleigh]

Yes and no. Also, I feel like the more you press on this dichotomy, the closer you get to engaging in fascism apologia and I'm already preparing my soundtrack for it.

Fascists aren't internationally pro-worker and support hierarchical relationships between nations. The issue of authoritarianism is a separate matter, and preferably wouldn't be present. Militarism is not desirable. There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting.

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

Fascists don't support hierarchical relationships between nations. Maybe some fascist leaders supported such concepts but it isn't part of fascist doctrine.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

It's all about the individual incentives for child-rearing. In a "developed" western capitalist economy, having children is largely an affective decision, and widespread access to wage labor disincentivized having many children. In "developing" economies, children often serve as labor units for families, and therefore families are incentivized to have more children. For a more comprehensive argument, read "The Myth of Population Control" by Mahmoud Mamdani.

Interesting, that does make sense. To me, it would seem more natural that more children would be much more expensive to rear, meaning that wealthier and better-off families (those in developed nations) would have the resources to support more children, while those in underdeveloped nations wouldn't have as many resources. Though, it probably costs a lot less to support a child when you strip everything but the brass tacks.