>>2315034>just say you support economic migration and your pathos resolves itself into intelligibility.Can you say where I support or oppose economic migration? It simply is under capitalism, and the solution to the issues of the working class is to unite workers, not put by working class in a double blackmail.
>i suppose not, mrs. thatcherWhere did I state society does not exist?
>that is the ultimate outcome which benefits the english bourgeoisieLet's assume this, why then is the solution in your mind to collaborate with the bourgeoisie in anti-immigration policy? All you have done is put the working class in a permanent bind where they are dependent on said bourgeoisie for said policy, while placing the working class in an ineffectual conflict against immigrant workers that is unresolvable and distrationary.
must work together…
>to bring irish independence! that is the conclusion, which he begins his premise with.For what reason? He is not arguing Irish independence for the sake of Irish independence, he make this clear in vast majority of his works on the Irish question. As he ends his letter:
<You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.Marx has clearly stated in all his works the need for international cooperation of the workers and the need for unity and revolution against the bourgeoisie. Can you show me where his policy of unity is only in regards to national liberation, and nothing more?
>they are in an objectively superior position. thats why the irish lower wages, to bring an equality of decriptude, for which there is antagonism. the english are not merely driven by colonial prejudice, but diminishing returns on labour.Marc and Engels, especially in their later works, have no sympathy for this idea that the English working class is the greater victim in this. The English working class is at every opportunity given the option of organizing labour, which would in turn prevent any possible lowering of wages among either the English or Irish. Instead, their "bourgified" colonial position, in a way similar to maybe an Israeli, causes and caused them to largely resist revolution due to the material benefits they received and the status they held over the Irish. Even if they suffered a reduction in wage (which Engels noted was largely untrue as colonialism and imperialism in Ireland ramped up), the national benefits made up for it in a way that unconsciously mellowed them towards the bourgeoisie line.
>which means the irish living in ireland rather than being forced into england, no?Where does it say this? Would mass exodus perhaps stop? Yes, but the modern equivalent of that would be an end to western imperialism abroad, and Europes and the United States support of it thereof. It does not equal, however, measures to collaborate with the bourgeoisie to obstruct and suppress migrants. There is no equivocating the two.
>national emancipation for whom!? people who DONT live in ireland?National emancipation for Ireland, which both the local and migrant worker must unite to achieve within England. Having done so, and the yoke of England thrown off, the local and migrant worker are now free to take the fight to the English bourgeoisie itself, with Ireland no longer capable of being used to placate and mollify the English proletariat by means of material benefit or economic caste.
>according to marx and engels, the irish worker lowers the standard of living for the english. this attitude is then based in material reality.Let's assume this, despite Engels correcting himself on this and not in that the English worker benefits greatly from the imperialism of the British Empire, creating a dynamic of there only being liberal radical and conservatives. As he states:
<You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies. In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied by a European population, Canada, the Cape, Australia, will all become independent; on the other hand the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply subjugated, India, Algiers, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions, must be taken over for the time being by the proletariat and led as rapidly as possible towards independence.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htmEven assuming that Irish worker reduces the wages of the English worker, it is clear that the path forward is anti-imperialism, unionization, and opposition to the bourgeoisie. If the solution that Marx and Engels believed in was bourgeoisie collaboration to obstruct and deport the migrant, surely they would have clearly prescribed it? Surely Lenin would have clearly stated as such, having built upon them? The answer is that in no point in history has immigration "oppostion" ever produced a revolutionary proletariet, and has only ever delivered the "local" worker into the hands of the bourgeoisie, who now dominates him by lever. All while said laws mean to make the migrants position worse, to make his status questionable, and so more easily abused and exploited with the country by said bourgeoisie. It leads nowhere but the same old system, buy under levers and double blackmail.
>which are better, higher or lower wages?Higher wages are something to "strive" for politically, but they are not the goal or the end point, merely a way to put the working class in direct confrontation with the bourgeoisie. If "higher wages" were simply all we demanded, rather then worker emancipation, we are easily the victim and perpetuator of opportunism and talism. Why not argue that half the population should be forced to stay home? Why not make the case that all people of a given orientation, race, or belief, should be rounded up and "dealt with", so as to have the remaining sum benefit from "higher wages" by means of a lower quantity of labour? It is a pit, and is shown in the inevitable ineptitude of all "yellow" unions.
>if higher wages, should the causes of lower wages be stamped out?Not if it means the bodies of the proletariat fighting over one another in an ineffectual struggle towards revolutionary stagnation and oblivion. The cause is capitalism and the bourgeoisie, distractions from this only put power in the hands of the bourgeoisie once again. "Pro"-immigration and "anti"-immigration rhetoric live in a false dichotomy, as both fail to tackle the main issue and place the bourgeoisie at the levers of control. The liberal "pro"-immigration crowd may exploit immigrant labour, but nothing else has allowed the deepest levels of that exploitation then "anti"-immigration policy, which gives the bourgeoisie the weapons, by visa or direct threat, to chain the migrant worker into accepting worse and worse conditions, and has the local worker cheer for such out of fear of the migrant and associate himself with the pedestal of the bourgeoisie. All while the rate of profit continues to lower regardless, which in turn will always inevitably apply pressure to wages.