Marxist Dialectics and Global Demography

[Anonymous No.15833285]

Has anyone ever attempted to synthesize the Marxist dialectic between the First and Third world and migration patterns of the present era? Specifically what I'm referring to is the Leninist-Maoist Idea that the wealth of developed nations stems from the exploitation of the global south and the poverty of the latter cannot be separated from the former. Essentially this is a larger scale version of the idea that the burgers cannot live in comfort without the relative poverty of the workers.

It strikes me that we see this same dynamic today in global migration patterns. Specifically I am referring to the low birthrate of developed nations compared to the high birth rate of the third world. To remain economically competitive developed nations siphon off the most educated classes of poorer nations, as well as the most ambitious elements of society. This is most evident in the massive brain drain experienced by most African nations. Nigeria for instance invests large amounts of capital in producing and educating young humans.The most intelligent and ambitious subsequently migrate to Europe and Africa where they work for the most productive part of their lives. In the long term this may have a negative effect on the Nigerian genepool while augmenting that of Euro-American nations. The global north gains far more from the migration of skilled workers then the south does, even when the payments sent home are accounted for. Furthermore, payments to families in the home country are typically invested in luxury goods rather then being reinvested into industry. In the Philippines, where labor migration is typically temporary, even more is lost as the Filipino government pays for both the education of workers, and supports them in their old age, while missing out on the labor these workers provide in their most productive years.

Essentially it appears to me, that the low birth rates and high productivity of the first world are increasingly dependent on the higher birth rates of the third. Labor migration means that wealthy countries invest less and less into their laborers while still obtaining the same results. Consequently the dependent to producer ratio in the south rises while in the north it is kept unsustainably low. To be clear, I have spent far more time studying global migration and demography then Marxist theory. I simply came across the latter and felt that it provided a good mirror to the former. I have read some of Wallerstein's work on world systems theory and I found it to be very compelling.

Pic Unrelated

[Anonymous No.15833367]

Isn't this kind of what Lenin writes about in his work about Imperialism as the highest stadium of Capitalism?

[Anonymous No.15833427]

>>15833367
That's were I got the idea, although I haven't read the entire book. But in Lenin's time imperialism primarily took the form of commodity extraction. The same was true when Kwame Nkrumah wrote Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism although the methods of extraction had changed. However, today this same dynamic has replicated itself with human beings on a scale that hasn't really been seen since the Atlantic Slave Trade. I'm sure that some left wing social scientist has written something about it, but I haven't found one yet.

[Anonymous No.15833454]

>>15833285
many have, it was called dependency theory but now is called world sistems theory.
some authors: Samir Amin and Wallerstein

[Anonymous No.15833480]

>>15833454
>I have read some of Wallerstein's work on world systems theory and I found it to be very compelling.
In which of his books does he mention demography?

[Anonymous No.15833548]

>>15833480
i don't remember i haven't read all of his works

[Anonymous No.15834037]

>>15833548
Does Amin mention Demography/Migration?

[Anonymous No.15834119]

>>15833285
That was a really fascinating articulation and elaboration on that idea. Thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.15834144]

>>15833285
I too have considered this idea for some time.

[Anonymous No.15834258]

>>15833285
Sounds like another legitimate reason to stop immigration

[Anonymous No.15834776]

>>15834119
>>15834144
That's good to hear guys. I was considering starting a book on the subject, but I don't think I can take academia anymore. I might return to the idea when I'm older.

[Anonymous No.15836352]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15836392]

>>15833285
>Essentially it appears to me, that the low birth rates and high productivity of the first world are increasingly dependent on the higher birth rates of the third. Labor migration means that wealthy countries invest less and less into their laborers while still obtaining the same results.
I've been thinking in this for a while. It seems something that many have been noticing for a long time. The other day I was re reading ted k's manifesto and he also said something like "human reproduction has been outsourced to the third world". It's not, however, something really new in capitalism. Consider european migration to the America's.

[Anonymous No.15836755]

>>15834776
As you all know, Capital has co-opted the “developing” world. As you mentioned, the local ruling classes are enriched and small middle class of consumers develops, driving economic progress for the general population. Whether in the Indian subcontinent or Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of surplus workers continues to swell beyond their ability to absorb them into the middle class. Though populations are not growing as rapidly (e.g. India’s birthrate is almost below 2.1), the demographic wave will not crest for another few decades. Still, those less/developed nations will continue to clamor for Western standards living. In the coming decades, it seems that the ecological crisis (climate change, pollution, deforestation, resource depletion etc.) will continue to metastasize while our capacity to extract inexpensive fossil fuel energy will likely decrease. Once the machine can not longer continue its exponential ascent of growth, once its promises are broken, the planetary working class will revolt. This will probably be concentrated, but not limited to, those descending from the global south.

[Anonymous No.15836803]

>>15836392
>It's not, however, something really new in capitalism. Consider european migration to the America's.
European migration to Americas was the traditional conquest and settlement. They were not migrating for higher wages, until capitalism gradually became the norm.

[Anonymous No.15836807]

>>15833285
>It strikes me that we see this same dynamic today in global migration patterns. Specifically I am referring to the low birthrate of developed nations compared to the high birth rate of the third world. To remain economically competitive developed nations siphon off the most educated classes of poorer nations, as well as the most ambitious elements of society.
It's not about that per se. First world countries are running out of people. They need more people to stave off economic collapse not because of the need to siphon labor power, but to provide aggregate demand. It's silly to talk about the need to siphon off and exploit more labor when 80% of the West has a fake job or is on gibs. In Europe, the vast majority of refugees from Africa and Arabia do not work and are on gibs. I actually feel that we're in a massive overproduction crisis due to the collapse in birth rates. If anything people should consider doing a Materialist analysis of the effects of The Pill on the global economy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFaZcC0lRU

[Anonymous No.15836814]

>>15836755
We are being prepared for this scenario. Almost daily one can find articles that allude to this - reckoning with the legacy colonialism, lingering inequality and social justice; the effects of climate change.

[Anonymous No.15836820]

>>15836807
The irony here is that Leftism itself is the cause of this, by which I mean feminism. Note that we observe the decline in fertility in countries like England among the aristocracy first as they adopt protofeminist worldviews and that it really tanks after changes to divorce law. The pill is just the icing on the cake in a way. One could view leftism as finally destroying capitalism by allowing women to opt out of childbirth until it all collapses due to lack of demand.

[Anonymous No.15836851]

>>15836820
I don’t disagree. However, birthrates don’t fall simply because of feminism and contraceptives. An increasing standard of living is what drives the structural move towards smaller families. One could argue that feminism and birth control are consequences “progress”

[Anonymous No.15836986]

>>15836851
Look at the collapse not so long after Matrimonal Causes Act 1857.

[Anonymous No.15837001]

>>15836986
US is even more liberal and has had declining fertility since its inception. It's not a novel phenomenon of modernity, it's increasing feminism.

[Anonymous No.15837042]

>>15837001
Feminism certainly plays a role, but I’m not convinced it’s the driving factor.

[Anonymous No.15837089]

>>15836820
>The irony here is that Leftism itself is the cause of this, by which I mean feminism
Depends on where. In eastern Europe the cause was clearly the fall of leftism, by which I mean socialism.

[Anonymous No.15837137]

>>15837089
In the West of course. Although the FSU countries have hilariously bad abortion rates...

[Anonymous No.15837207]

>>15837137
>Although the FSU countries have hilariously bad abortion rates...
Not as bad as SU countries. Nomenklatura were massive prudes and completely omited any talk about sex, let alone institute sexual education, so people were fuggin without condoms and got abortion afterwards. The fact that abortion rates declined is one of the few positive sides of "western degeneracy".

[Anonymous No.15838128]