Progressive Capitalism and Population Movement

Paul Kersey recently had a post on why Dayton was looking for Hispanics to move in. Foseti reviews a book on the economics of immigration. People seem to be moving about a lot in the modern world, but why?

As I have said before, capitalism demands cheap labor. Mass movement of populations has been a feature of progressive capitalism since its invention at the advent of global trade. The New World tropics provided an excellent environment for growing sugar cane, making cheap sugar- a highly desirable product- available to be sold in Europe. But growing sugar cane was a highly labor intensive process, so huge number of Africans were forcibly moved to South America and the Caribbean. (Without knowing the actual numbers, I suspect the economic significance of slavery to sugar far outweighs its significance to cotton.) Cotton of course was another highly desired industrial commodity, becoming more significant with the advent of the cotton gin and then the steam loom.

Northern European overpopulation provided a push as well as a pull factor, and steam power for riverboats and then railroads made trade, and thus the profitable population, of the North American interior on a large scale possible. Steam power also made mining and manufacturing on a large scale possible. In Europe this occurred with farm to city movement, but some of the obsolete farmers moved to North America.

The trouble with moving large numbers of people around is that it has consequences that are regarded as undesirable as well as desirable to the people in power. The sugar plantations of the Caribbean made some British colonists very rich, and the merchant class in England didn’t care for this, particularly since they tended to be the wrong kind of people. The slave trade was ended, and while it may seem like a noble gesture, the slaves were isolated on islands and weren’t going anywhere, so the sugar business for good Methodist and Quaker businessmen in England wasn’t really affected.

Slavery in the US had fewer barriers. Concentrated in the Southeast, much of the rest of the continent appeared to be ripe for development with slave labor, if only the legal and political problems could be resolved. The South controlled and had controlled the Supreme Court of the US for 60 years or more, so when they weren’t resolved by democratic methods they were resolved by judicial fiat, in the old American tradition. Unfortunately the Southern slave owners were also the wrong kind of people, and many whites who couldn’t care less about blacks wanted to farm in the West without competition from plantation operators, so Dred Scott and Lemmon v. New York were overridden by the Civil War.

Blacks remained confined to the South as agricultural labor for some time, but northern factory owners found the Europeans recruited to work in their factories restive, so they started to bring blacks north. Later they found that it was easier to move the factories to a cooperative population than bring a cooperative population to the factories, and so many manufacturing operations moved south, but that is another story.

The immigration story of the last 50 years does not occur in a vacuum, but is in the centuries old tradition of moving people to where they are desired, to create a new industry or replace a restive population. Moving blacks north broke the political power of working class Europeans, but blacks are not a satisfactory or useful population except in the political sense. Once blacks had political power, they became completely useless as workers. The solution- and this was quite open in the 1980’s, although muted since- was that Latin American immigrants would replace blacks in menial jobs. Working class whites were quite happy to see blacks get the heave-ho, and even blacks didn’t mind, since all the blacks who counted had government or affirmative action jobs, and the lower class ones didn’t want to be janitors anyway. Later whites got replaced by Hispanics, and government jobs more and more require Spanish, so those who didn’t mind are ruing the day.

Population movements of this kind are really a “policy” in terms of something government officials or academics think up, they are just what businessmen want at the time. In that sense Collier’s analysis misses the point. And the formal recruitment of Hispanics into Dayton is a little unusual in the sense it is so open, but a city with a heavily black population is useless to businessmen, so bringing in a population that has a good balance of docility and productivity is the right move.

The argument in America is most people come from someplace else- as part of some earlier capitalist generated population movement- so no one is in any position to object. But just because some cynical thing was done in the past for the benefit of a few, doesn’t mean it is OK now. People who have been moved or induced to move in the past are captives of their place of birth, and their only defense against replacement is preventing new workers coming in.

The answer to these movements isn’t any kind of economic analysis but “No”.



About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Progressive Capitalism and Population Movement

  1. PA says:

    How do “civil rights” and general anti-white policies fit into this? From the capitalistic perspective, it seems like unnecessary sadism.

    • Well capitalists engage in a lot of unnecessary sadism. You’ve probably noticed your employer (if a capitalist enterprise) is a lot nastier to the employees than they need to be. Part of it is human nature, part a need to remain firmly in control.

    • PA says:

      Your answer tells the story. For one, my experience in the private sector is consistently one of shared mission between senior management and staff, and this scales up to big company CEOs. The petty dictators were a fixture of my public sector work.

      I can partly answer my question: desegregation created real estate churn and cascading increases in consumption (cars, etc).

      But that’s a partial answer. If there is a sadism feature in social control, one would expect this latent cruelty to distribute itself over all subject races, not solely over whites.

      • PA says:

        I meant “your answer tells only a partial story”

      • ckorzeniowski says:

        But that’s a partial answer. If there is a sadism feature in social control, one would expect this latent cruelty to distribute itself over all subject races, not solely over whites.

        Not necessarily. Non-elite Whites are just the red headed step child of the American family.

  2. Hizzle says:

    “(Without knowing the actual numbers, I suspect the economic significance of slavery to sugar far outweighs its significance to cotton.)”

    Henry Louis Gates has those numbers, and to his credit, in his PBS “Black in America” special he revealed that roughly 10 times as many slaves were brought to South and Central America as to North America. They don’t do collective historical guilt in Brazil or Cuba, though, and they’re still ballsy enough to be openly racist toward the “pinche mayates,” so there is no “anti-racism”/reparations hustle going on down there.

    Incidentally, a lot of blacks now consider Gates to be an Uncle Tom for merely pointing out this fact. Whitey must always be kept on the defensive, not given ammunition, especially not the ammunition provided by the plain truth. My favorite piece of honesty regarding slavery is still Alex Kurtagic’s “The Black Man’s Guilt.” He quotes primarily from not only black, but afrocentric, scholars who are honest to a fault about the black man’s violent subjugation of the black man for several thousand years in Sub-Saharan Africa before a white man even set foot into the jungle.

  3. tg moderator says:

    Much of American political history may be understood as a conflict between the Quaker/Puritans of the northeast (predecessors of commies and leftists), and the planter aristocrats of the south. There was a third major group who are largely responisble for the success of the county–the yeoman farmers (predecessors of todays middle class homeowners). Very rarely in American history has the interest of the common man been well represented. The Know Nothing party tried to restrict immigration before the civil war and were largely ignored. Ben Franklin observed that cheap land was an important factor in determining the wealth of the nation. Frederick Jackson Turner later observed that the frontier was the determining factor that prevented much of the class conflict in Europe from occurring in America (until recently). You cannot participate in capitalism without capital, and in the US the common man had access to his own homestead because of the frontier. Both of the major groups that actually controlled the US political system have always wanted cheap labor and have diluted the wealth o the average American for over 200 years by pressing for more immigration. The blather about American exeptionalism from Republicans ignoes what made America exceptional. It was not the constituition–it was the frontier. The squeeze on the middle class is reaching a critical level. There is no frontier to act as a safety valve. The typical American has most of his family’s wealth tied up in suburban real estate, and the value of that holding is often destroyed by desegregation plans. If moldbug is correct an incremental reaction has never occurred and will not occur so the republic will not be restored. Even if the republic could be restored where is the frontier? How will access to capital be provided for the average citizen? My only thought is that wholeslae corporate bankruptcies will make capital available to small business at fire slae prices if a major depression occurrs. Perhaps it is the case that the prosperity enjoyed by families in the 1950s was the result of depression era deflation.

    • >>Perhaps it is the case that the prosperity enjoyed by families in the 1950s was the result of depression era deflation.<<

      That's an interesting point. Gustavo Liro once pointed out that in hyperinflation, assets become cheap, because people need to sell them to buy food. That hasn't happened here, but it could.

      The elites stopped immigration in the 1920's because they feared they were losing control of the country. They temporarily made a deal with lower-class whites with the New Deal, but blew that off after the truce had served its purpose. There was no corporate power from 1930 to 1965 and no immigration from 1925 to 1965. Beyond that, deflation certainly made everything a lot cheaper.

      Franklin said the quality of life in America was based on two things- high wages and cheap land. With regards to the first, stopping immigration would get wages back up, but the elite has much more thorough control now than it did in the 1920's, so I don't think that will happen.

      The frontier can't be brought back. Low cost land is available though, in places where blacks have moved in and destroyed things. Detroit is a hell of a bargain. Whites can't take advantage of this, but Hispanics can, because the elite tolerates ethnic cleansing of blacks by Hispanics. Whites are afraid of blacks, but with good reason, because any violent confrontation between a white and a black is likely to be legally distastrous for the white (or honorary white, in the case of George Zimmerman). A clever white could buy a bunch of real estate in Detroit and rent it to Hispanics, but the formal market is ruined by housing laws. He would have to work through a Hispanic social network, which would be difficult.

  4. none says:

    Economics doesn’t drive the invasion, white-hating racism does. Business supporters are just auxiliaries whose job is to give money-grubbing Republicans a face-saving reason for not antagonizing their liberal masters so they can continue feeding at the trough. Republicans don’t oppose ANY of the left’s white-hating racism, they don’t even dare speak out on the mass-murder of innocent whites in the street under circumstances that obviously indicate racial hatred. You never hear any real discussion about economics during immigration “debates”, no studies are cited, no politician would dare to harp on economic studies negative to immigrants, no matter how much not doing so hurts the economy, because it would be “racist.” Half the immigrants in Western Europe immediately go on the dole or into crime – it is illegal to discuss it. And every call for ANY restriction on immigration is quickly labeled as “racism.” Immigration is a policy of hatred and genocide against white people, those driving it don’t care what comes after the final solution either economically or otherwise. They just want you dead. There can be no greater example of this reality than the alliance between the extreme left and Islam. Business is a side-show in this Holocaust, just as it was in Poland in 1942.

  5. tg moderator says:

    I’ve been trying for years to think of a decent way out of this mess. What was Quaker/Puritan/Universalism has become an atheistic quasi religion. What do these people intend to do?

    Here was one interesting observation at the link that follows:

    It’s better to start with “What do SWPL White American people want?” Mostly – they want to move back downtown from the suburbs. They want an ethnic reversal / reconquista / uber-gentrification of core urban living – to live like Urban Whites did before the 1960′s – without fear of crime from Blacks, with ‘good’ public schools (full of children of their own type and class), without long traffic-jammed commutes, enjoying cultural opportunities and proximity to centralized institutions (especially of upper middle class employment), and enjoying ‘pleasant person patronized’ public transport.

    So while the tow main elite groups in America have supported immigration for over 200 years the reasons may be changing. What is what is left of the white middle class to do? For those with the money and credentials joining the elite is the best choice. Even if you don’t believe all the politically correct BS., you can live very well. In the prepper/survivalist camp the so called American redoubt is a populat concept, but this is largely a migration of old people with money. Te movement does not appear to have legs, and is essentially a retreat. A reaction would seem neceessary, but I’m not convinced by Mr. Moldbug that a King is the best choice. I have some inclination to think that much of the reactionary argument is based on a strawman argument. We argue that universal sufferage and democracy are bad, therefore a king is good. The republic was never intended to be democratic and now it has failed. The important thing to realize is that the immigration debate is not new, and has always had support of almost all elites.

    • Monarchy is required because it is the only force that can check “big business”, formerly known as the Third Estate.

      Estates of the Realm wiki

    • “atheistic quasi religion”

      Remove the quasi. I think why many people fail to see the religious nature of Progressivism is because in the West, we have come to equate religion with theology, thus missing the existence of nontheistic religions. Consider, for example, Buddhism, especially the Theravada branch, and the parable of the poisoned arrow.

      While perhaps a bit overbroad, I find Steven Prothero’s definition given in God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World, and Why Their Differences Matter to be much more useful than most Americans’ “religion=theology (+ afterlife beliefs & moral commands backed thereby)”. He holds that religion addresses the innate human sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world, by providing a diagnosis and solution. For Christianity, the problem is sin, and the solution is salvation (through Christ); for Islam, the problem is pride, the solution is submission (to the will of God); for Buddhism, the problem is suffering, the solution is awakening/enlightenment (extinguishing desire); and so on. Note that the Progressive view fits perfectly into this framework: the problem with the world is inequality, and the solution is redistribution (by government).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s