Capitalism and immigration

[Tennyson]

This thread is my response to Mynydd who has harshly criticised laissez-faire capitalism which has supposedly caused mass immigration.

How does Mynydd explain the absence of mass immigration in truly capitalist countries like Great Britain or the Netherlands in the 19th century? The United States in 1924 was perhaps the most capitalist society which ever existed. Yet the Immigration Act of 1924 enacted by the U.S. Senate halted the immigration of racial and national groups which were foreign to the America.

In 1924, members of the US senate and their contemporaries in Europe were aware that an ethnically homogenous population was economically most productive and the introduction of unassimilable foreign elements would be detrimental to the nation.

Whether the economic system is capitalist, socialist or mixed the immigration policy which will be followed in democracies is mainly determined by the prevailing scientific and philosophical belief system about racial and national questions.

In the 1960s when mass immigration to Europe began Western European economies were typically a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Unfortunately, values had changed. The academic establishment already propagated disinformation about the alleged non-importance of race which deceived capitalists and common men alike. Churches adopted false, universalist views of Christianity. There were men like Sartre, Foucault, Levi-Strauss and Derrida who had exceptional ability to distort the legacy of the Enlightment.

It is ultimately a matter of philosophical judgment whether the preservation of national groups has intrinsic value. I think that it has; most modern Westerners seem to disagree. However, it is not a matter of judgment whether racial differences exist and whether mass immigration of current racial composition will lead to decline of civilization in Europe. Because of this it is at least equally rational to halt immigration in a laissez-faire economy which happens to best harness man's selfish and greedy nature to benefit the nation.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

This thread is my response to Mynydd who has harshly criticised laissez-faire capitalism which has supposedly caused mass immigration.

How does Mynydd explain the absence of mass immigration in truly capitalist countries like Great Britain or the Netherlands in the 19th century?

I would think it is related to the native labour cost. Then it was low cost. When it was less, they had to find a cheaper one. Capitalists always do that. When workers aren't competitive enough they find an even cheaper labour in the third world and when these ones have an increase of their income -when they become more qualified- they [the swine] look for poorer workers and so on.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

I would think it is related to the native labour cost. Then it was low cost. When it was less, they had to find a cheaper one. Capitalists always do that. When workers aren't competitive enough they find an even cheaper labour in the third world and when these ones have an increase of their income when they become qualified they [the swine] look for poorer workers and so on.

Actually, immigration does immense harm to European national economies. It doesn't have a meaningful impact on the cost of labour.

"Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten, one of the few genuinely critical journalists in the country, in June 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO stated that the current immigration policies were a serious threat to the country's economy. Norway is the planet's third largest exporter of oil, next to Saudi Arabia and Russia. Yet according to NHO, there is a risk that much of the profit Norway earns from oil could be spent on paying welfare for a rapidly growing immigrant population. The most profitable immigration would be high-skilled workers who stay for period of limited duration, but at the same time not too brief. A Danish think tank has estimated that the net cost of immigration was up to 50 billion kroner every year, and those were cautious estimates. Denmark could thus save huge sums by stopping immigration from less developed countries. A study found that every other immigrant from the Third World -- especially from Muslim countries -- lacked the qualifications for even the most menial jobs on the organized Danish labor market."
Global Politician

[Menydh]

The answer the exposure that I wrote on Marxism and immigration to Europe.

On this new thread you have shot the few (and wet) shots that you had left for this issue. It adds very little and I believe that Carnyx has answered it in short.

Sorry that I cannot extend on it right now. I have to finish a couple of things before I go to bed, and this is only a note of reminder to myself. I'll be back to this new discussion because, although what you've added is little (and I would even say that desperate), it is nevertheless interesting to analyze in more depth.

[Menydh]

What you call my harsh critique to laissez-faire Capitalism, is actually a refutal to your futile attempt to divert the attention from Capitalism in the issue of immigration, by shifting all the blames on Socialism. This is the text in question: Marxism and immigration to Europe

Before answering to this new, desperate and last attempt of yours to deceive on this issue, I will allow myself a comment that help others understand the origin, the nature and the intention of your agenda.

It is very simple. You, Tennyson, are a religious fundamentalist much like any of the Islamic or the Hebrew fundamentalists that we have been acquainted with through the news in the last two decades. You are aware that it has been through Capitalism that immigration has reached mass peaks, as I have demonstrated in a summarial but consistent way in the above mentioned post. But you are as well aware that the origins of Capitalism are in the so-called Protestant Ethic, as proposed by Max Weber (a Protestant scholar himself), and as a co-work of the Judaic Ethic as exposed by Werner Sombart (a Catholic scholar) as a follow-up to the former.

The problem is that instead of doing what would be expected out of decency and honesty, which is admitting the mistake and moving on in the search for a way to tackle the threat of immigration over Europe which will take to the irremediable ethnic anihilation of the Europeans, you choose to deny it and to blame others for it.

I don't know if you have ever thought about the consequences of your acts. To put it simply, the already reduced chances to search for a solution to reverse this ethnocide, are further reduced to zero. You do not put down a fire by pointing to the flames. You put it down by pointing to the seat of the flames, to the very source.

Worse, different people on Stirpes subscribe to different religious beliefs. Some are Agnostics, others are Christian, yet others are Atheists or even Pantheist, Asatru or whatever else. All of them within European range. There are disagreements and there may be discussions on it, but they are civilized and well informed most of the time. What you have done is trying to introduce an element of discord, through baseless and debased accusations, through the construction of your own agenda.


Now, back to the questions which opened this thread, you are surely ignoring the XIXth century migration (and earlier) mass movements carried out by the British and Dutch India companies: Indians and Malays to Africa, or Black Africans to America. Just to set an example.

As if Black slaves was not a form of forced immigration, most shocking is the fact that the migration of Indian labourers was provoked in part by a supression of the economy in India under the rule of the British Eat India Company, which was followed by a catastrophic famine.

But apart from these, it was Britain's policies in Ireland that forced a mass migration of Irish which would feed the industries of Britain.

However, this was not all that necessary since labour at the time was a very cheap commodity. It was later on, when competitivity increased and social movements (yes, including the Catholic Church) pressed for wages which allowed workers to live with a certain dignity, that mass immigration was promoted from the Capitalist system as a means to feed the labour market and force wages down.

The laissez-faire economy is not concerned with the state of the countries beyond the economic indicators. What you call "nation" is actually the country, not related to the ethnic concept of nation. If the nation poses a barrier to the goals of profit maximisation of the Capitalist economic system, the elements of the nation can be replaced. It is the markets, not the people that matter.

Even an idiot could see this with little problem. Someone who is stuck in a XVIIth-century religious fundamentalist moment, however, is very capable of blaming it to the more insane delusions.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

This thread is my response to Mynydd who has harshly criticised laissez-faire capitalism which has supposedly caused mass immigration.

How does Mynydd explain the absence of mass immigration in truly capitalist countries like Great Britain or the Netherlands in the 19th century? The United States in 1924 was perhaps the most capitalist society which ever existed. Yet the Immigration Act of 1924 enacted by the U.S. Senate halted the immigration of racial and national groups which were foreign to the America.

In 1924, members of the US senate and their contemporaries in Europe were aware that an ethnically homogenous population was economically most productive and the introduction of unassimilable foreign elements would be detrimental to the nation.

Whether the economic system is capitalist, socialist or mixed the immigration policy which will be followed in democracies is mainly determined by the prevailing scientific and philosophical belief system about racial and national questions.

In the 1960s when mass immigration to Europe began Western European economies were typically a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Unfortunately, values had changed. The academic establishment already propagated disinformation about the alleged non-importance of race which deceived capitalists and common men alike. Churches adopted false, universalist views of Christianity. There were men like Sartre, Foucault, Levi-Strauss and Derrida who had exceptional ability to distort the legacy of the Enlightment.

It is ultimately a matter of philosophical judgment whether the preservation of national groups has intrinsic value. I think that it has; most modern Westerners seem to disagree. However, it is not a matter of judgment whether racial differences exist and whether mass immigration of current racial composition will lead to decline of civilization in Europe. Because of this it is at least equally rational to halt immigration in a laissez-faire economy which happens to best harness man's selfish and greedy nature to benefit the nation.

WTO.

That little private group of financial masterminders who have decided that states are just a problem for the free trade, i.e. the free flow of capitals and manpower wherever they are more conveniently employed.

By them, obviously.

Nation states with their protectionist policies are an obstacle for this group of powerful financers, who come mostly from Europe and the anglosphere, but are eager to make businness with anybody.

This is called anarcho-capitalism: no laws must stop the interest of capital.

Their bete noire is protectionism, i.e. any policy by a nation state meant to protect its markets from unbearable foreign competition: on the contrary, their religion is competition at any cost.

The world is no more in the hands of the nobles, no more in the hands of the warrior or of the pious.

It is in the hands of the merchant, who are turning it into a giantic bazaar: whoever is admitted as long as he or she has something to trade, regardless of his or her morality, identity, religious beliefs, racial heritage.

The only law is that of money and profit, and they are enforced severely.

For the rest any behaviour is okay since any other rule would disturb the happy spending some of the customers of the universal grand bazaar.


Any analogy with a brothel is not casual.

The morality of the global merchants is the same as that of a madame.

[Berrocscir]

Capitalism is still evolving - one of its latest manifestations is that of multinational corporations who see local laws, traditions, customs and culture as barriers to their goals and as obstacles to be overcome. In their drive for greater profit they seek to make nations, peoples, sovereign states subordinate to their globalised economy. In recent times it is these organisations that have encouraged immigration.

[rodion raskolnikov]

Immigration is not a fear for the capitalists. It is a (down-orientated)pressure on European workers' salaries. It is also interesting for all the black/underground sector of economy, the capitalists do not care if some illegal activities are not taxed by the State, they just want to keep the money.

The following article is quite interesting and deals with the economical opportunity of immigrates' regularizations:

Régulariser les immigrés peut rapporter gros

Un think-tank anglais estime que le gain annuel pourrait être d'un milliard de livres.

VOILÀ une proposition qui devrait provoquer quelques remous. Pour l\'Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), un centre de réflexion britannique, la Grande-Bretagne devrait régulariser un demi-million d'immigrants illégaux, arguant que cela profiterait grandement à l'économie du pays. Mieux ! Ce think-tank, proche de l'ancien premier ministre Tony Blair, dit-on, a calculé qu'une telle mesure rapporterait près d'un milliard de livres par an (1,47 milliard d'euros) « comparé aux 4,7 milliards de livres (6,9 milliards d'euros) qu'il en coûterait de les renvoyer chez eux par la force », écrit l'IPPR. Un tel scénario d'expulsion est de toute façon « irréaliste », poursuit-il, citant des estimations gouvernementales qui montrent qu'il faudrait trente ans pour y parvenir.

Et quand bien même, avance l'IPPR, « notre économie stagnerait. Alors, nous avons un choix pour l'avenir : laisser les gens vivre en marge, exploités et dans la peur de l'avenir, ou les ramener dans la société, pour qu'ils paient des impôts et vivent une vie honnête ».

LeFigaro

Check also this good debate between Eric Zemmour and Valérie Lang (daughter of Jack Lang and member of Bayrou's Mouvement Démocratique called MoDem). Eric Zemmour explains how immigration is a good opportunity for the Capitalist system and how it is ideologically and emotionally dealt: Video Eric Zemmour Contre Valérie Lang - antiaciste, antiracisme, gauche, gauchiste, sarkozy - Dailymotion Share Your Videos

++++++++++++++++++
RODION RASKOLNIKOV
http://SLAVICIS.BLOGSPOT.COM