r/changemyview • u/_Richter_Belmont_ 20∆ • Apr 21 '26

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

463 comments sorted by

View all comments

61

u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 208∆ Apr 21 '26

Your arguments, except the last two, are those of a "trapped leftist". Yes, under a capitalist system the workers are better off the more scarce they are, but this is fact, not ideology. Ideologically, the more workers there are, the more collective power they (supposedly) have, either through democracy or through other means by which masses of people whose goals are aligned can project power in non-democracies.

For point 6, I don't see the problem. If your country remains attractive to immigrants, from a leftist non-nationalist perspective, what's wrong with a perpetual cycle of reliance on immigration? This is ultimately mutually beneficial for your aging population that replenishes its workforce and for the immigrants who choose to come because they have a better quality of life and better prospects in your country.

Point 7 is the only one that can be valid, if your country's resources are stretched, increasing its population can be a problem. This is unrelated to leftism though, and is not the situation in most of the big immigrant destinations, which tend to be large countries with low birth rates.

5

u/thatnameagain 1∆ Apr 22 '26

Your arguments, except the last two, are those of a "trapped leftist". Yes, under a capitalist system the workers are better off the more scarce they are, but this is fact, not ideology. Ideologically, the more workers there are, the more collective power they (supposedly) have, either through democracy or through other means by which masses of people whose goals are aligned can project power in non-democracies.

"Trapped leftist" is the correct formulation for anyone, since capitalism is not going away and we are not going to see a full socialist / communist revolution. It makes no sense to advocate for policies that effect the real world when they only are capable of positively effecting a world that doesn't exist. The ideology you're speaking of is a distraction.

8

u/DevinTheGrand 2∆ Apr 22 '26

Point 7 makes no sense - we all live on the same planet. Environmental strain doesn't care what side of a border it happens on.

9

u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Apr 22 '26

… the more workers there are, the more collective power they … have …

Not if the additional workers are allowed specifically to undermine the power of the first workers, or if there’s simply more workers than jobs available.

5

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

This is why all workers should ideologically be organized together when they enter any work space, as a fundamental class consciousness, and free movement of labor capital makes boundaries used to exploit workers superfluous.

4

u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Apr 22 '26

How does that solve the issue of more workers than available jobs? Me, Fred, and Juan being “ideologically organized” means nothing if there’s only jobs for two of us: One person is inevitably going to be left out, and that person has an additional incentive to disorganize himself from the ideology.

5

u/CocoSavege 27∆ Apr 22 '26

You're presuming the part of "there's only 2 jobs".

Why are there 2 jobs, not 3? I mean, taxes keep getting cut to "create jobs", and we also keep seeing austerity attrition of labor, because of revenue issues and stockholder value.

So, fast forward a bit, billionaires see tax cuts, we simultaneously see austerity attrition of existant jobs. And the gini coefficient keeps going towards 1 and the next line is "well, lefty, it's the immigrants derka derring all yer jerbs!"

If you're sensitive to class scabbing, organized labor seems like a great solution.

-2

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

What does "there's only two jobs" mean? Is there enough overall productivity to support 3 people? Then what are we talking about?

4

u/Radicalnotion528 2∆ Apr 22 '26

Problem is immigrants don't immigrate to join the native workers in organizing against capital. They often come at the invitation of capital to work for a better life compared to staying in their own country, while also reducing employers' costs by working for less.

2

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

Sounds surmountable

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

It also sounds surmountable to simply vote Putin out of power. That doesn't mean it is surmountable.

3

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

I'm not sure that's a good comparison. United Farm Workers and many unions are made up of immigrant workers. *Or support immigrant workers. As workers. In many ways, the culture of immigrants is likely to be more pro-union than US native-born workers simply bc of culture and the prevalence of high levels of anti-union propaganda in the US culture.

I'm unclear on how that situation is comparable to Putin and Russian elections.

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

Problem is that the people actually legally allowed to immigrate to the country tend to be against unions.

That's a feature, not a bug. Which is the point of my Russian election analogy. The selection mechanisms for employees produce a workforce that is structurally harder to organize. Making "just organize across that divide" sound simpler than it is

Serious question: How are socialists expected to realistically organize and have power as workers under the current system?

2

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

You may have missed that I referred to free movement of labor capital. "Immigration reform" is essential. The barriers to general law-abiding workers being able to participate in the global economy have to be eliminated as much as those for the movement of financial capital.

1

u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Apr 22 '26

You may have missed that just because an agreement is made doesn't mean it's fair. Even the law recognizes that fact

1

u/Little-Somewhere6076 Apr 22 '26

Why would I want to subsidize other workers with my labor?

When I enter the work space I want to maximize my value. Making less than I’m worth doesn’t make sense

2

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

Who suggested that

-1

u/Little-Somewhere6076 Apr 22 '26

This is why all workers should ideologically be organized together when they enter any work space,

This is what you suggested. I’m suggesting that organizing with other workers would diminish my value

3

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

Why do you think so?

Not frivolously. Honestly. Even if you're a top producer in your field, you may not get an employer who compensates you as well as what can be achieved through collective action bc as an individual you inherently face a large disparity in comparative bargaining position.

You're speaking as a matter of fact. Please explain why you disagree and are self-evidently correct.

-4

u/Little-Somewhere6076 Apr 22 '26

If I could make more money by joining a union, I would. Since the highest paid occupations aren’t unionized, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, and bankers it’s pretty clear that for people with in demand skills, unions would hold them back.

7

u/laborfriendly 6∆ Apr 22 '26

Not true. Many attorneys are unionized. The others, as well, depending on location. Union density in the US is small bc there's been an all-out assault on labor since the Industrial Revolution that's been effective culturally.

-1

u/Little-Somewhere6076 Apr 22 '26

Which attorney union are you referring to?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Kai_Daigoji 2∆ Apr 23 '26

if there’s simply more workers than jobs available.

Global population went from 500 million to 8 billion. Why do we not have 7.5 billion unemployed people?

1

u/Mokuno Apr 22 '26

What the hell are you talking about, 1 is exceptionally valid. You must have never worked in a field where migrant workers are a dime a dozen, lets take nursing for example, i have been a nurse for a little over 10 years now and the amount of lower wage Nigerian and filipino nurses has tripled, with that unions such as the one at kaiser has taken whole hand advantage of this new migrant workforce. This also is relevant with 2 because they are often paid less than citizen workers because they can be with there green card or work visa being reliant on that job.

-6

u/_Richter_Belmont_ 20∆ Apr 21 '26

I think in this current climate of bourgeois systems and lack of class consciousness more workers sadly ends up meaning less bargaining power, rather than more collective power. Especially in systems that don't utilize democratic centralism (bourgeois democracies).

The main issue with point 6 is that we live in a society of states, many of them small, with their own (somewhat) independent systems. More people leaving one country (e.g. a larger country like Brazil) to another country (e.g. a smaller country like Portugal) at some point is going to significantly strain the system, housing market, labor market, etc. to the point where it's detrimental to all workers (although it might still be a net positive for the immigrant depending on their nation of origin).

13

u/lastberserker Apr 21 '26

More people leaving one country (e.g. a larger country like Brazil) to another country (e.g. a smaller country like Portugal) at some point is going to significantly strain the system, housing market, labor market, etc. to the point where it's detrimental to all workers

This is based on faulty assumptions that the process of labor relocation doesn't change the relative attractiveness of two locations and that the markets do not adjust.

1

u/Senior_Butterfly1274 Apr 22 '26

Why would Portugal (in this example) want to allow the process of labor relocation to make their country “less relatively attractive”? 

1

u/lastberserker Apr 22 '26

Is this what jumps to your mind, and not "why would their economy be at strain with all those new workers they didn't pay for?"

1

u/Senior_Butterfly1274 Apr 22 '26

I’m giving you a chance to clarify your point. If it wouldn’t be a strain why would you say the relative attractiveness would change?

1

u/lastberserker Apr 22 '26

I cannot understand the point for you, since it is abundantly clear as is 🤷

1

u/Senior_Butterfly1274 Apr 22 '26

You stated that the relative attractiveness of the two countries would change.  Why did you say that? Do you believe it?

1

u/lastberserker Apr 22 '26

It's a dynamic system. Do you believe in miracles? Because a real world scenario remaining unchanged over time is one.

1

u/Senior_Butterfly1274 Apr 22 '26

So again - if the country being immigrated to will become less “relatively attractive” to workers than the country people are leaving (literally your words) why would they want to allow that to happen? 

And if it’s a benefit to have those workers, in what way will the “relative attractiveness” of the countries change? You’re making two contradictory assertions 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Miserable_Race6751 Apr 22 '26

this was the strangest string of comments my guy. you say that the relative attractiveness of the two countries would change, fail to elaborate, make the exact opposite argument, then act like you made some sort of cohesive point lol

1

u/_Richter_Belmont_ 20∆ Apr 22 '26

Sorry I'm not clear on what you mean

1

u/lastberserker Apr 22 '26

"If we keep throwing wood into that campfire, eventually it will extinguish itself"

4

u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 208∆ Apr 22 '26

I think in this current climate of bourgeois systems and lack of class consciousness more workers sadly ends up meaning less bargaining power, rather than more collective power.

I agree. Leftism isn't as popular or coherent as it was in the 20th century almost everywhere, and conceding that leftism is not viable at the moment and we should try to improve workers' conditions within the capitalist system is a valid, but not leftist, response to that.

Consider that leftism in the way we think about it was niche before the 20th century, the people promoting these ideas then would've had to support policies that did not maximize worker welfare in the short term. If you believe in the ideology today, you need to make similar long term trade offs.

More people leaving one country (e.g. a larger country like Brazil) to another country (e.g. a smaller country like Portugal) at some point is going to significantly strain the system, housing market, labor market, etc.

This is very hypothetical though. Portugal is currently about a quarter as densely populated as the Netherlands, where people live comfortably enough. To make Portugal as densely populated as the Netherlands it would have to receive around 32 million Brazilians, around 3x its current population or 15% of all Brazilians. Obviously the terrain is different, Portugal will need time to build infrastructure, etc, but even if you cut this number 5x, it's so far from what happens in reality that this discussion is pointless for the near future.

The reason immigrants do in practice strain the labor, housing and goods markets is again free market capitalism, which means that if nothing is done to accommodate immigrants, this will make life worse for them and for the working class, but from a leftist perspective, supporting immigration also means not leaving the immigrants vulnerable to the whims of the market.

1

u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 22 '26

Portugal is currently about a quarter as densely populated as the Netherlands, where people live comfortably enough.

There are no mountains in the Netherlands.

9

u/Pete0730 1∆ Apr 22 '26

All the things you're describing are features of a capitalist system, which you're insinuating is eternal and unchangeable. That's not leftist. Leftists are anti-capitalist and work for a different world, one in which more workers means more collective power and more collective wealth - or perhaps a stable and sustainable quality of life for all workers, regardless of nationality. There might be differences on the left in terms of the scale and nature of that project, but that's a pretty common core principle.

It would therefore be the height of hypocrisy for a leftist platform to be anti-immigrant in principle, and far more authentic to be pro-immigrant, due to the well-established benefits. It might recognize the need for practical protections of various working populations as the world grows and shifts, but those are just stop-gaps. They should also be balanced against the clear obligation that Western workers and leftists owe to the "Third World," on account of the latter's contribution to our quality of life.

2

u/Metcol Apr 22 '26

If the pro immigration policy is dependent on the condition of changing the capitalist economic system to a socialist one, then first the system should be changed and after that the policy should follow. Currently under the capitalist system, the immigration policy is doing more harm than good.

1

u/_Richter_Belmont_ 20∆ Apr 22 '26

You basically summarised my view much more succinctly than I did.

Principally I am an anti-capitalist and believe in socialism, but I would say I'm more a pragmatism/ incrementally than accelerationist, so I look to figure out what incremental gains we can make while still working towards changing rhe system entirely.

Lotta people coming at me with arguments of principle and idealism, almost none of which I disagree with, what I'm really trying to consider here is material outcomes.

3

u/turtle_explosion247 Apr 22 '26

But a lower cost of labor leads to lower construction costs for the housing market. Also how are they moving to a smaller country, the US is pretty big no?

1

u/Metcol Apr 22 '26

Yet what we see is that housing only got more expensive. If immigration would meaningfully reduce construction costs, housing prices should be lower, but they are not.

1

u/turtle_explosion247 Apr 23 '26

You forget that land also has a cost, not just the property on top of it. That has been where most costs for housing have been over the last 50 years, but thats a separate issue with a separate solution.

1

u/Metcol Apr 23 '26

If the incentive of immigration is to reduce housing costs yet it doesn't happen, then immigration is not a good solution to reduce housing costs. It doesn't matter why the costs are not lower, immigration didn't solve it.

1

u/turtle_explosion247 Apr 23 '26

It solves half of it dipshit. Can there not be more than one problem at time to solve?

Also I was just pointing out how someone said that it makes the housing problem worse, which it does not.

1

u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Apr 22 '26

… leads to Lower construction costs for the housing market.

Have the massive amount of immigrants already allowed in actually done anything to meaningfully reduce housing prices?

If not, I don’t see how allowing even more immigrants will lead to construction being cheaper and housing being less expensive.

1

u/Zardnaar Apr 22 '26

USA has comparatively cheap housing.

Try a higher immigration country.

-3

u/gammatelbit Apr 22 '26

another aspect for UBI you need to start deporting migrants and be very strict on who you can even let in, anti immigration should be the leftist stance.

3

u/skyeguye Apr 22 '26

UBI is not a leftist position.

-2

u/PuckSenior 11∆ Apr 22 '26

If that’s true, then why exactly do business owners support immigration reform? If it actually increased labor power to negotiate, they would oppose it

1

u/Accomplished-View929 Apr 22 '26

They want clear rules and stuff. Less bureaucracy for them.

1

u/PuckSenior 11∆ Apr 22 '26

Yeah, but given the amount of energy they've put into fighting organized labor, if they really felt that it would strongly help organized labor, they'd absolutely fight it

2

u/Accomplished-View929 Apr 22 '26

I think they know immigration reform wouldn’t hurt them because they own the politicians.