migration

[shelfhead]

Please bear with me, I'm new here. Just a quick question for starters: What's the solution to the problem of migration (both of skilled and unskilled workers) from an undeveloped country to say the UK, which feeds capitalism by providing cheap labour, yet at the same time deprives the other country of skilled people?

[Whitten]

I'm actually writing an essay on this phenomenon at the moment, although its not finished yet.

A thought experiment:

Economic imperialism and domination by the first world nations of the third world has produced a differential between the lifestyle (mostly through wages, although welfare and market availability are also factors) available to the working class of 1st and 3rd world countries.

The reason for ecconomic migration (not other types of migration) is that the workers born in third world nations will want to move to a first world nation where they can earn a better living for the same, or less, labour than they would get in their home nation.

Economic migration is accelerating due to a number of factors, primarily technology related. Open Boarders organisations liek the EU speed things up even more in Europe.

This ease of economic migration means that if conditions get significantly worse in any third world country there will be an acceleration of the rate at which workers leave to go to 1st world countries.

The reason workers in first world nations benefit more from their labour is because the Capitalist classes are able to profiteer at the expense of the workers of the less developed nations. If the Capitalist class were not able to exploit cheaper labour in this way the workers of the first world nations would end up being treated in a similar manner.

The migration of workers from under developed nations means that there will be less workers in these nations to exploit, hence less labour and less production will be possible. This will result in some of the deficiet of required labour being transfered to developed nations, at the expense of some of the workers of these nations, and in an acceleration of the trend of the rate of profit to fall. Over time this results in an ecconomic equilibrium forming between the formerly 1st and 3rd world nations.

Obviously this is a simplified model, but the early effects of ecconomic migration are already starting to be felt, especially in Europe. This will likely cause a growth in radical nationalism as a reaction to the change (definatly being observed already). An interesting peculiarity of this situation is that some of the proletariat of developed nations will initially lose out (well the Bourgeois are hardly going pay for it out of their own pocket if it can be avoided), hence the rise in nationalism.

[Janus]

Economic equality and advancement in the "home" nation. That's the only viable solution that will stop people from immigrating into more developed areas not fences or guns.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, there was once a good South Park episode that dealt with this very issue. In the episode, people from the future were coming back in time for jobs in the present world because the future world was all fucked up. The people of South Park began to start violently stopping the futurist from coming back until they realized that, in order to make them stop coming to their time, they should try to make the future better so they don't have to come to their time. Now just change the word "future" and "present" to "third-world" and "first-world". I know it's an odd example, but it does a good job at explaining how the "immigration problems" could be fixed relatively easily.


God, I need to stop watching so much TV.

[shelfhead]

Whitten- thanks for your reply. I don't think a rise in nationalism is going to occur as a direct consequence of migration to the UK, as much as a general feeling of despair. National pride only emerges when football is on the telly. Also contingency plans are in place to ensure no nationalist party in the UK will ever get into power.
What I feel is most likely to occur is a groundswell of public opinion against the collapse of the country's infrastructure due to overpopulation. Already in some areas traffic is virtually at a standstill at peak times. Hospitals and schools can't cope, supplies of utilities are disrupted, and all the time taxes continue to rise with no apparent improvement in services.

[Floyce White]

Migration is not a problem. People go where they will. The problem is those who tell others what to do, such as not to migrate.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:57 am
Whitten- thanks for your reply. I don't think a rise in nationalism is going to occur as a direct consequence of migration to the UK, as much as a general feeling of despair. National pride only emerges when football is on the telly. Also contingency plans are in place to ensure no nationalist party in the UK will ever get into power.
What I feel is most likely to occur is a groundswell of public opinion against the collapse of the country's infrastructure due to overpopulation. Already in some areas traffic is virtually at a standstill at peak times. Hospitals and schools can't cope, supplies of utilities are disrupted, and all the time taxes continue to rise with no apparent improvement in services.
When I said a rise in nationalism I ddn't necessarily mean the BNP would get elected. I meant that the popularity of nationalist opinions and xenophobia, which could lead to racial conflict.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 08, 2007 07:04 am
Migration is not a problem. People go where they will. The problem is those who tell others what to do, such as not to migrate.
Well, sort of.

The fact is that most immigrants don't want to leave their homeland. They're used to the culture, they have friends, family etc. The fact is they're pretty much all forced to. Capitalism ruins their economies, or puts them into positions where they have to work for shit (or worse; causes war), so they migrate to the richer nations. Which is equally beneficial to the capitalists, as they then get cheap labour, and can use these darker skinned people as scapegoats, for the problems that their privatisation has caused.

I mean, I think that "No borders" is a stupid slogan. I agree that we should remove all artificial barriers between all people. But a lot of the arguments that come from the no boarders camp involve facts and figures about how profitable immigrants are, and how good and healthily they are for the economy. Which I think is probably insulting to the underpaid pakistani/Polish worker.

If capitalism were abolished, and they could run their own lives in their own countries, I don't think you get so much immigration. As people tend to like their own cultures, as a matter of familiarity.

But undoubtedly, there would be a lot of crossover, sharing of traditions, and even clashes between cultures, after capitalism. But as I said, I don't want to see any artificial borders or barriers.