/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2572888
meant for
>>2572017

>>2572912
>When Marx says the working class have no country, are you implying instead that they must reify the idea of country?
marx and engels supported irish nationalism. if this contradicts your presuppositions, thats your problem.
>Why would I care to regulate it?
>And why is not wishing to petition for regulation mean I support cheap labour as a necessary evil to fight racism?
marx says mass immigration lowers the moral and economic condition of the native working class, so to support mass immigration (by not regulating it) is to in fact support the cheapening of labour. mass immigration is a capitalist phenomenon, so normalising it shows that the interests of capital trump labour.
>Not in all cases, no.
okay, so you dont believe in democracy.
>A united labour struggle negates the ability to reduce wages
can one company hire 8 billion people?
>I don't understand this
of course not. you think 8 billion people can live in one city and have high wages. youre confused.
>after 155
cant find it. quote it for me.

>>2573059
thx.
>>2573061
is there a way to have solidarity while also regulating immigration?
>>2572894
okay, so again, to be a leftist you must support mass immigration. thats what i keep hearing. this means that the interests of capital are more progressive than labour.
>>2572930
>Initially, he wasn't very generous to the Irish, no
he? i reference both marx and engels:
<Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
so the only way you have a point is to be deceptive? ok.
>You should read this
so you must be against labour unions too.
>Early limited observation.
its been proven.
>Its not that its "bad" or "good"
🤣🤣 so pathetic.

>>2573207
>let
Holy shit!

>>2573104
>marx and engels supported irish nationalism. if this contradicts your presuppositions, thats your problem.
And I explained why they did. It's not for the end point of maintaining the nation state, but for both weakening the English aristocracy, and opening up Ireland for agricultural, and thus later proletarian, revolution.
>marx says mass immigration lowers the moral and economic condition of the native working class, so to support mass immigration (by not regulating it) is to in fact support the cheapening of labour. mass immigration is a capitalist phenomenon, so normalising it shows that the interests of capital trump labour.
If I don't support criminalizing drug use, am I supporting the use of drugs? In no way am I supporting the cheapening of labour, as my program prevents the cheapening of labour, and I clarified Marx's position on this later on. There is no "normalizing" mass immigration, immigration simply is in capitalism, and given my interest is the emacipaction of labour, that interest is applicable to all labour. Wage labour is also a capitalist phenomenon, but am not normalizing it by understanding that people must work jobs.
>okay, so you dont believe in democracy.
I do not, no. Why would I? Revolution isn't a very democratic affair.
>can one company hire 8 billion people?
No, but why would it matter? If they can't hire 8 billion people, then they can't hire 8 billion people. It still doesn't negate the fact that organized labour prevents the reduction of wages. A proper labour struggle then takes the unhired, and also organizes them as part of the larger labour movement.
>of course not. you think 8 billion people can live in one city and have high wages. youre confused.
8 billion is an absurd number to begin with, but they can, or rather they can do away with the wage system in its entirety.
>cant find it. quote it for me.
Huh? It's multiple letters, I can't quote every letter after pg. 155. It starts with the letter calling the Fenian leadership asses and exploiters.
>>2573105
>is there a way to have solidarity while also regulating immigration?
Not really, beceasue your effectively forking the struggle. Migration is already regulated, it's merely a liberal demand, and by the time you could have acquired any more then what is regulated, you could have just organized and taken the state. Capitalists control migration anyway, so doing so requires you to make concessions to the bourgeoisie and engage in collaboration for goals that are easily levered back by the bourgeoisie.
>okay, so again, to be a leftist you must support mass immigration. thats what i keep hearing. this means that the interests of capital are more progressive than labour.
Who mentioned any support for mass immigration? We're superceding the false dicotomy itself. If you "support" mass immigration, you're acting in liberal capitalist interests. If you are "against" immigration, you're acting in liberal capitalist interests. Only by organizing the proletariat into a unified bloc do you strike at the heart and move past the false dicotomy presented to us.
>so the only way you have a point is to be deceptive? ok.
Where am I being deceptive? You only have a two line quote, while I provided a lot of in depth clarifications and amendments by Marx and Engels. Contrary to what they thought, the English proletariat were seen to become "bourgeoified" in the coming decades, having been bribed by the exploitation of groups like the Irish.
>so you must be against labour unions too.
I am against non-revolutionary unions, for the reasons gone over earlier. Labour unions are a tool to build up to class consciousness and revolution, but by themselves without such direction, are simply the tool of the bourgeoisie and labour aristocrat who seeks not the end of wage labour but the pemement perpetuation of it.
>its been proven.
Has it?
>🤣🤣 so pathetic.
What is exactly pathetic about what I said? There are many things that will likely not persist in the decades to centuries after capitalism, but it isn't "good" or "bad". We're making moral claims with these.

I don't think you're thinking out what you're saying anymore, as you're defaulting to one liners and attempted gotchas in response to the sources and explanations I provided. You're not interested in conversation, you're only interested in validating what you already believe.

>>2573207
>instead of supporting people organizing in their own country we should let they come in, work in semi-slavery conditions, depress local wages amd weaken labor movements because muh internationalism
This is a false dicotomy. We have no true control over the state, and if we did, we would just seize it to establish a DotP anyway, which makes this moot. Those people should organize in their own countries. We should also organize with those people that are here and are coming here. There is no alternative. The movement is only weakened if you turn prole on prole while the bourgeoisie work hand in hand, and wages are only arguably affected when migrants are denied rights and are able to be super-exploited. How can migrants depress wages if they are organized with the domestic worker? We aren't chauvinists, our goal isnt simply higher wages either, and Marx makes this point clear. The fight for wages is to put fire into the revolution, to make it clear that the proletariet has power, and that when reform inevitably fails, that revoltion is the path forward. I swear, most of you aren't marxists, you're embarassed Social democracts.

>>2573207
>should
You will never be a communist so long as your questions of the strategies of the international communist movement center on what the bourgeois state should or should not do to manage its crises

>>2573207
Go sit in the dunce chair. You failed that analysis.

>>2573758
>I do not, no
okay, so why should i talk to you if you dont believe in democracy (rule of the people) on a supposedly left-wing board? you dont appear to believe in anything anyway.
>It still doesn't negate the fact that organized labour prevents the reduction of wages.
is it possible to raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 an hour? if not, why not?
>Not really
okay, so again, you are forcing the ultimatum that one must either unconditionally support mass immigration or they are hitler.
>Where am I being deceptive?
does marx say that mass immigration lowers the economic and moral condition of the native working class? yes or no?
>is it?
you should know since you said marx was wrong. more lowly deception.
>What is exactly pathetic about what I said?
because youre a coward who both feigns ignorance but also have an implicit dogma. is mass immigration good or bad? i say bad, because its caused by imperialism and has a bad effect on national labour, inciting reactionary sentiments and chauvinism, which cannot be overcome since the two boxes available is either a blind support for capital or hitlerism. i am the one attempting to break the dichotomy by showing the irrationality of both. why would i hate an immigrant for doing what is in their self-interest? equally, why would i support millions of people being forced to lower the standard of living because they are profitable to a few capitalists? common sense cannot abide by these terms, so i dont accept them. lets be honest, the "debate" is retarded because no one wants to listen to each other. im trying to gauge the signals from the right-wing communists on this board to set the terms, and its all over the place, cos no one wants to appear irrational, but thats what theyre being. i have only suggested that regulation ought to be permitted, and im sidelined as hitler, so help me out here. grow a spine; split the party.

>>2574118
>first world
>third world
Lib

>>2530843
<What do we do about immigration?
Damage control. Multiculturalism has been achieved now we need time for integration.

>>2574095
> okay, so why should i talk to you if you dont believe in democracy (rule of the people) on a supposedly left-wing board?
<le people
You’re a fuckin retard, communists aren’t trying to constantly litigate the French Revolution again and again
> is it possible to raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 an hour? if not, why not?
Because this would destroy a currency, and has nothing to do with the communist project fascist retard
> okay, so again, you are forcing the ultimatum that one must either unconditionally support mass immigration or they are hitler.
Nta but yes, 100%, you have no other argument than fear of the stinky poopoo people and child-like attachment to a “culture” that was invented by americans in the 50s during the Marshall Plan
> does marx say that mass immigration lowers the economic and moral condition of the native working class? yes or no?
Does Marx call Lasalle a Jewish nigger yes or no?
> because youre a coward who both feigns ignorance but also have an implicit dogma. is mass immigration good or bad?
You’re a coward that wants the bourgeois state to slaughter the stinky poopoo people for you, along with the communists, all because you’re too much of a racist cunt to organize with the brown man

Immigration won’t be a problem if the global south stops being exploited

>>2574162
>I mean, this just btfo's your entire fucking point and proves mine.
>Thanks for that.
Bruh, what are you talking about? Do you even know what I'm saying here? SNP X + Z doesn't do the same thing, because SNP Y + Z does do the exact same thing you idiot. SNPs aren't genes, they are variations in the code that operate in conjunction with other SNPs. In practical terms, person A and person B are still exactly the same, but the extremely small minutiae of how things end up the same can be marginally different.

>>2574488 (me)
Also, good on you for ignoring literally every point I made to try and hone in on one part that doesn't even refute what I'm saying. Proves even more you don't know wtf you are talking about, and that you pulled all this from one post.

>>2574332
from what ive been told, communists are not left-wing and arent democrats, so youre indistinguishable from fascists, then. its a waste of time talking to fascists.

>>2575569
>communists are not left-wing
Wrong.
>and arent democrats,
True these are right wing liberals.
>waste of time talking to fascists
Fascism is just authoritarian liberalism.

>>2575575
so you are left-wing but dont believe the people should rule?

>>2575576
I firmly believe that that anyone opposing proletarian democracy should be murdered.

>>2575569
Better that then being a racist bourgeois ass licker as you, drown yourself

>>2575580
so you do believe in democracy, then?

>>2575597
i dont talk to fascists

>>2575598
You cant have socialism without collective ownership. Collective ownership requires democracy.

>>2575613
so you support democracy then?

>>2575616
Of course. All power to Soviets but I mean it unlike Bolsheviks.

>>2575621
okay, so in this thread there are left-wing democrats and right-wing non-democratic people who both call themselves "communists", so its bewildering.

>>2575635
Even those authoritarian communists argue that its a necessary temporary phase to protect revolution from internal and external counter-revolutionaries. Anyone thinking that real communism is when there is a literal strong man dictatorship and youre a slave to state is mildly put ignorant about this topic.

>>2571366
>"Palestinians are reactionary" the only thing you're educating people about is that 'Marxism is for spiritually Israeli armchair pseuds'
Wrong. In scientific socialism, any violence by a subjugated population without even bourgeois rights under imperialist capitalism is acceptable in order to acquire economic sovereignty. You can see this with Marx accepting the separation of Ireland from England if the alternative is the continuation of the subjugation and exploitation of Irish workers, as long as it is not possible to organize English and Irish workers because of English chauvinism that deceives workers into not acquiring solidarity, then separation is an acceptable alternative so that in the future a socialist federation can be formed with more equal relations between Irish and English, but remembering that the ideal would be to organize English and Irish workers together for a socialist revolution acting together. This already helps to understand the position of defending the self-determination of nations that Lenin wrote.

Now let's start by explaining to you the question of what capitalist imperialism is with Lenin:

<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Now let's look at his position on the types of countries as examples at the time Lenin wrote about the self-determination of nations and capitalist imperialism:

<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations
<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:

<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.

<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.

<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.

<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01

Now regarding the issue of wars and the opportunists who obscure the truth by trying to defend imperialist capitalist finance capital that maintains dependency to intensify exploitation. I'm only posting this to avoid confusion if someone is reading what I wrote trying to equate the war of a puppet of imperialist capitalism that uses chauvinism against the Russian population with the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel to acquire economic sovereignty:

<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.

<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm#v23pp64h-029

Now a text against those opportunists who equate every war as if it were "inter-imperialist" to defend US hegemony:

<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm#v23pp64h-036

>>2571366
>I've never once heard a single Marxist podcast talk to their undocumented slaves who actually have the jobs that depicted in the symbol of communism. Marxists have spent more time talking to worthless labor aristocrats like Contrapoints. Its impossible to explain why!

Contrapoints is not a Marxist, therefore it's irrelevant to what I'm writing. Remembering that I am from the so-called global south and I have solidarity with all workers of the world, including those of the so-called "first world," so that the proletariat acquires political supremacy to abolish private property in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Since you are talking about the labor aristocracy, then I have a quote for you from the source with Lenin that demonstrates that you do not know that this labor aristocracy is a small minority group of workers that exists to sabotage the workers' movement and weaken it by serving the bourgeoisie, deceiving other workers, but the victory in the class struggle of the working class also benefits this labor aristocracy that is acting as class traitors, unlike the discourse of resentment against first-world workers that third-worldists have been talking about, equating the interests of first-world workers with capitalist imperialism to create passivity and resentment, thinking that scientific socialism is based on a moralism of feeling pity for third-world workers:

<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. 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.”

<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….

<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”

[…]

<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

[…]

<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.

[…]

<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.

<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.

<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!

<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

Post-the holiday, so I can talk a bit.
>>2574095
>okay, so why should i talk to you if you dont believe in democracy (rule of the people) on a supposedly left-wing board? you dont appear to believe in anything anyway.
Left wing isn't synonymous with democracy. There have been plenty of political movements which style themselves as "democratic" which operate with strictly anti-leftist goals. Bordiga outlines my issues with democracy in a revolutionary context cleanly https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
>is it possible to raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000 an hour? if not, why not?
What relevance does this have? No, but the point is the struggle for higher wages so as to heighten and elucidate the contradiction and conflict between prole and capitalist.
>okay, so again, you are forcing the ultimatum that one must either unconditionally support mass immigration or they are hitler.
Where did I say "unconditional support for mass immigration" once? It seems like you can only strawman my position, either out of a lack of understanding, or purposeful misrepresentation. A person who "unconditionally supports mass immigration" is also not operating with a proper communist mindset, as they are completely missing their role we play and necessity of what must be done.
>does marx say that mass immigration lowers the economic and moral condition of the native working class? yes or no?
And I posted his later developments and clarifications. Would you deny this? I don't think you would apply his standard to any other economist or even philosopher.
>you should know since you said marx was wrong. more lowly deception.
Again, where is the deception. I've been awfully accommodating this entire time for what little you provide.
>because youre a coward who both feigns ignorance but also have an implicit dogma.
I posted responses and sources, I don't think I've been feinging anything, while that of your claims seems to be ctrl + f for whatever agrees with you, and a stubborn obsession in misrepresenting what I say to instead insert the argument you want to be having with me, and argument I never presented.
>is mass immigration good or bad? i say bad, because its caused by imperialism
You could say this.
>and has a bad effect on national labour, inciting reactionary sentiments and chauvinism, which cannot be overcome since the two boxes available is either a blind support for capital or hitlerism.
But this is mistaken. The issues are purely within the lap of capital as a system and the bourgeoisie as a class. If we are to supercede things as they are, we cannot pray at the altar of the bourgeoisie in the hope that capital rectifies the issues of capital, that proletarian conciouness is gained by bourgeois collaboration at the expense of the proletariat. Neither blind support for capital in a "liberal" sense, nor blind support for capital in a "hitlerian" sense. Rather, a recognition in the minds of the proletariat of the brittleness, the weakness of chauvinism, and that power is gained by proletarians of all places, even migrant, working with on another against capital. The migrants are here, the system churns in a way which makes them an inevitability. Will you work with them, or perish? Not out of a defense of capital or "immigration", but of interest and necessity.
>i am the one attempting to break the dichotomy by showing the irrationality of both.
Yet you fall into the irrationality of bourgeoisie collaboration, of effectively doing the same as the liberal in how you approach capital. I don't think you understand, I see you as no better then the liberal who views the migrant as merely person meant to undertake the labour they wont. Your "contribution" to the abolishment of wage labour is just as worthless.
>why would i hate an immigrant for doing what is in their self-interest? equally, why would i support millions of people being forced to lower the standard of living because they are profitable to a few capitalists?
Did I say do either? Don't do either. Don't even put weight one side, for or against. Just act, work with the people that is here or coming, and fight against the system in its entirety.
>common sense cannot abide by these terms, so i dont accept them. lets be honest, the "debate" is retarded because no one wants to listen to each other. im trying to gauge the signals from the right-wing communists on this board to set the terms, and its all over the place, cos no one wants to appear irrational, but thats what theyre being.
I know exactly what you're saying, you just refuse to even consider what I am saying. Respectfully, most of your issues come more from being ill-educated on the subject of what I am talking about in regards to my politcal "affiliation" then anything else.
>i have only suggested that regulation ought to be permitted, and im sidelined as hitler, so help me out here. grow a spine; split the party.
Permitted by who? By us? By you? The answer is the answer to why I make the decisions and offer the program that I have. There is no "splitting" in what I hold, there is no "party" here besides what I see as necessary. MyI've stayed convicted in what I've stated, it's only spinelessness to you because you have spine for the topic of revolution. We're incompatible here; you're an admitted liberal, for you migrants are just competition because this system of capital and nation-states is the end point for you. It isn't for me, and what I believe is what's necessary to achieve the superceding of that system, as opposed to the inconsequential preservation of things "as are".

>>2531387
>You can see this argument regularly on 4glow now: communist states didn't have what they call mass migration, the students who came went back to their countries and contributed to their industrial

Obviously not, living there sucked. The Berlin Wall was erected to prevent people fleeing West Berlin

How do white Marxists plan to prevent ethnocentric favoritism in the government when whites become a minority (something that's already a forgone conclusion in the USA, and Arabs are on track to outbreed Europeans eventually in several countries). There's already de facto oppression of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa, for example.

I've never seen any leftist seriously address this concept, they just sweep it under the rug or insist it won't be an issue. It seems like if you were logically self-interested you would want your own ethnic group to be a majority in your state, just for the sake of not having to worry about targeted oppression.

>>2587428
It says right there in the middle article you posted that the famine was caused by drought, but the text at the top makes it seem like it's because they kicked out the white farmers. Why do you think that is?

>>2587433
Droughts are easily countered by modern irrigation systems and well pumps but African peasants and/or the state Agriculture Department didn't know/care to use them.

>>2572903
>(in the aftermath of the inevitable World War III between the U$ and China escalating into a Global Nuclear War that completely destroys the entire Global Capitalist-imperialist System) successfully creates a Global USSR

Okay but I live in the Imperial Core and it getting nuked won't help my material conditions.

>>2587446
No treats for first worlders

>>2587448
So you're saying that Marxism is just a rallying banner for 3rd-worlders to plunder the 1st World and there's no logical reason for a 1st-Worlder to support it?

>>2587443
>how come the sahara doesn't have a booming soybean sector when irrigation exists!?
how can you write so confidently about stuff you know nothing about

>>2587482
Zimbabwe is Sub-Saharan.

>>2587500
Rhodesia/Zimbabwe used to be known as the "Breadbasket of Africa" BTW.

>>2587443
Modern irrigation systems are expensive.
Anyway, it's not what I asked anon, that could be done with or without white farmers. Im asking you why your meme framed this famine resulting from drought to be a result of Mugabe "Kicking out the white farmers"

>>2587428
>There's already de facto oppression of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa
fucking kys polyp with your shitty race propaganda

>>2587443
>just instantly build a whole irrigation system when you have a drought!
>>2587514
>here I asked an AI about zimbabwe agriculture 20 years ago because I dont know shit about it
this is the retards we have to deal with today

>>2587745
I already knew Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa (that's a popular chud talking point), I just screencapped it so you would believe it more.

>>2587825
The famine occurred because Mugabe distributed the land to his own cadre of corrupt officers and friends who didn't know how to run a farm not because they didn't have anyone who couldn't manage them. I mean the whites had Zimbabwean farmhands and assistants who helped them manage the farm that they provided training and skills too.

>>2587446
The Global Nuclear War will not just effect the Imperial Core, but will also severely affect the Semi-Periphery and Periphery as well, with the U$, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the Zionist State, and sadly the DPRK, all guaranteed to be heavily Nuked by each other, but the good news is that if you are not in or near a First Strike target (ie. ICBM base, Bomber Base, Ballistic Missile Submarine Base, etc.) or Second Strike target (ie. Major Cities) you will probably be fine, as Nuclear Winter is Pseudo-Scientific Bourgeois Propaganda created by Reagan and Gorbachev in the 1980s and the Fallout is not that dangerous as long as you seal your windows and doors, and its not like this would just happen without warning, as it would be the culmination of a High-Intensity Conventional World War III between the U$ and China, so if you live near any of the obvious targets, you will probably have plenty of time to flee to safer areas (or at least build a makeshift bunker and/or try to hide in your basement), so the death toll could be a lot lower then people think, also Global Nuclear War is not the only Shining Path to Communism, as if the U$ does not go Fascist (ie. Trump dose not use the Insurrection Act to permanently suspend Bourgeois Liberal Democracy), their is also the much better Social Democratic/UBI/4th Industrial Revolution/AI/Multipolar Shining Path to Communism, in which a Social Democratic Imperial Core where UBI allows for Income to be divorced from employment after the 4th Industrial Revolution automates most of the workforce combined with the Hyper-Rationalization of the Superstructure through the legalization of all Victimless Crimes like Abortion, Birth Control, Pornography, Sex Work/Prostitution, LGBTQIA+, Drug use, Gun ownership, etc. and a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy that accepts Multipolarity, unites with a Maoist Periphery/Semi-Periphery, where Maoist PPWs swept away all Bourgeois Comprador and Imperialist governments after the 4th Industrial Revolution Automated Global Supply Chains and Reshored them back to the Imperial Core and the Green Energy Revolution shut down all Oil/Gas production worldwide, thus collapsing the economies of all Sweatshop countries and Petrostates, to create a Global USSR that will place the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

>>2587428
You strike me as a /pol/tard, but I will still answer your question in good faith in hope that maybe you will realize that Socialism is not incompatible with every Ethnic group having their own country, and solving the Global Migration Crisis in a way that is beneficial for the entire Proletariat (Native and Non-Native) in both the Imperial Core and Periphery/Semi-Periphery, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

The Global Migration Crisis is purely a result of the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System that has created widespread Poverty/Inequality/Starvation combined with Genocidal Imperialist Wars launched by the U$ and the Zionist State throughout the Periphery/Semi-Periphery countries that has caused millions of people from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Eastern Europe, and East Asia to flee their homes and try to get to the Imperial Core (ie. The U$ and Western Europe), where they are used by the Bourgeoisie for both cheap labor and as a convenient scapegoat/bogeyman to divide the Proletariat in order to elect Fascists like Trump who will gut the Social Safety Net and eventually declare Martial Law and permanently suspend Bourgeois Liberal Democracy, so their is no way to truly solve this problem as long as the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System exists, but once the World Maoist PPW successfully creates a Global USSR (all of the SSRs and SFSRs of the future Global USSR are shown in the Map I posted), the Global Migration Crisis will end, as their will be no Material reason for anyone to migrate anymore, as every person worldwide will have Free Housing, Free Healthcare, Free Education, a Job Guarantee, and a UBI, and most people who migrated will probably voluntarily return to their homelands, with every Nation/Ethnic group receiving their own SSR according to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principle of Self-Determination of all Oppressed Nations in their own SSR as articulated in Stalin’s “Marxism and the National Question” https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm and Lenin’s “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm , along with the National Delimitation Policy of the USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_delimitation_in_the_Soviet_Union , so if you genuinely want to end Mass Immigration and ensure Ethnic Homogeneity in your country (if you notice, the U$ is divided into a Anglo-American SFSR that will include all of the English speaking White majority regions of the U$ and Canada, a New Afrikan SSR that will include all of the Black/New Afrikan majority counties in the Black Belt, and a Hispano-American SFSR that will include all of the Spanish speaking Multiracial regions of the Americas, including the Hispanic/Chicano/Mestizo majority counties in the U$ Southwest, while all of the Native American Reservations become ASSRs, with Ethnic Homogeneity ensured by Peaceful and Voluntary Population Transfers) in a Humane and Progressive way, embrace the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Highest Stage of Marxism, and start traveling on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️!

There's a certain irony involving some of the people here that support reactionary immigrants being allowed into the west getting upset when reactionary /pol/tards are allowed to migrate to leftpol and start posting here

>>2587879
how about we shove it up your ass?

>>2587911
open ur own anal borders