>Europoor
It's becoming increasingly clear that the majority of proles in Europe and North America are being brainwashed by their phones into believing immigration is the biggest issue in their countries. I have largely ignored this issue, as I don't really think it matters but then, last night, there was a lumpen riot in Dublin against an IPAS centre in which a foreign national who had been denied asylum and was told to "self-deport" had apparantly raped a 10 year old girl who was under state care. I usually don't believe a lot of the lies told about "migrants" online but this case makes me feel particularly uncomfortable.
It was a clear failure from the neoliberal Irish government and it's institutions that allowed something like this to happen. Why wasn't this man deported immediately after being denied asylum? Too expensive, apparently. Why was this man allowed to be in a situation where he could sexually abuse a child? Why is this man in my country in the first place? Ofc, the Free State institutions are keeping silent on it, pissing off people even more.
So, how do leftists feel about immigration and the current asylum process? Obviously, I understand this wouldn't be an issue if western corps weren't raping the third world but I also think there is a discussion to be had. Are open borders in the current world really working? Would they work post-capitalism? How do you feel about immigration, positively or negatively?
>>2530843>Obviously, I understand this wouldn't be an issue if western corps weren't raping the third world but I also think there is a discussion to be had. IMO the left can't win on it either way. It's a right-wing issue because it's the right which made it an issue and built a constituency around it. The left will never outlank the right on this or out-Tommy the Tommy Robinson. Not gonna happen. The left will win on its own issues like cost of living.
Total (insert a demographic) death
>>2530845Yeah, I think the discussion shouldn't be had actually. When the yellow vest movement happened and was supported by a majority of the French population the topic completely died, the right wingers were on TV desperatly trying to shift the debate now centered on cost of living and inequality to immigration but it was pathetic and didn't work. It's basically an idpol psyop depending on the bourgeoisie having a monopoly on public discourse.
>>2530843>What do we do about immigration?My tactic is calling people retarded for caring about it
>>2530845>we have to surrender these issues to the rightjust sounds like youre too cowardly to give a rational solution which could convert people
>Why wasn't this man deported immediately after being denied asylum? Too expensive, apparently.
you know this is a lie though. there is no lack of public expense. the reason he wasnt deported is because the government is complicit in the crime. shouldnt be surprising, since most politicians are pedos themselves.
it should be explained why is immigration happening and that no bourgeious, or populists party is going to end it. meloni cucked out to the italian business. so has every other right wing populist.
but theres no point trying to play either side or make policies. it just falls into a trap with some patsocs trying to out flank the right, (or look at sir kier starmer trying to be more right wing. nobody buys it.) or the established left just because the right hate the policy of housing alsylum seekers in hotels, that means that housing people in horrible hotels is good. but you'll have the usual activists turning up and chanting slogans for a policy nobody likes.
>>2530867boomers weren't expecting the boriswave at all
>>2530845The problem with trying to give left-wing solutions to immigration is as you have described.
On the other hand, the (native) working class is absolutely anti-immigration. That is just how perception works. Neoliberalism caused a deteroriation in living conditions. It has also caused massive immigration. While the latter isn't being caused by the former, if people are getting poorer and the most drastic change they are saying in their day-to-day lives is more and more brown people walking on the streets, it's extremely easy to blame that as the cause of their suffering and you sure as hell not going to convince them otherwise.
And if you are a socialist, your duty is to stand with the downtrodden. A large chunk of those people are immigrants. How are you going to balance that with a left-wing and moderate anti-immigration policy? The immigrant poor will choose you because you are the only one appealing to them, but right-wing workers will think of you as another leftie who wants to replace white people with brown people.
So even if you have a soft anti-immigration policy (restrict future immigration but give equal rights to those who are already here), you are going to become a party of Muslims. As far as I know this is what Melenchon does and this is the best we can do currently. And I haven't even talked about the "left-populist" parties that cucked themselves to the neoliberal left like Podemos or refuse to have any criticism towards immigration like Die Linke.
Unfortunately even if the right gets into power, they won't fix immigration. Just look at Meloni's government. It shows no signs of weakining even though to the best of my knowledge major cities in Italy are still full of Arabs and blacks. Right-wing politicians just need to say hateful things with zero substance in terms concrete policy, but people will support them
The way I see it there will be an ultra-radical right takeover where they mass deport or outright exterminate the non-white people and few years later people will realize that it didn't fix the economy and they are still poor and then they overthrow the fascist regime. Or don't because at that point we have fascist police states all over Europe that will imprison, torture and kill you if you question legitimacy.
Or maybe there will be a civil war between the left and the right as economic conditions further deteriorate. We don't know who will win (probably the right because the army, the police and the secret services are filled with the sympathizers), but a lot of people die and people will become poorer than ever.
My greatest hope is that a red-brown coalition saves the day (after all growing the economy by forcing enterprises to invest in labour-saving technology as part of national plan is the only way to actually end immigration, not by achieving growth by increasing the mass of exploited people by bringing them from abroad), but that would be pretty hard to achieve if the basis of the identity of the left and right is hating each other.
But immigration is somewhat of a problem, there's tons of evidence showing that certain immigrant group are net negative to the country host, the question is: why? Is it their culture? Poverty? Another factor?
>>2530926>Or maybe there will be a civil war between the left and the right as economic conditions further deterioratetheres already a war between the working class and the left, and you are pushing them to the right
This thread is a good example of how people are so easily swayed by their emotions. You made a thread just because of this one incident.
>Why wasn't this man deported immediately after being denied asylum? Too expensive, apparently.
Not unreasonable. How often does it happen that a denied asylum seeker expected to self-deport rapes a minor instead? You would spend a lot of money to deport these people right away just because of something that might be rare.
>>2530928If you‘re a Marxist this shouldn‘t be a big conundrum to you. Self-deport from this board, liberal.
>>2530843One immigrant man rapes a child: media uproar
A thousand Christian priests rape children: silence
I don’t care.
Climate change will force 1 billion Africans and Indians towards the northern hemisphere and its gonna be hilarious.
>>2530867Visa requirements are already insanely high. You need to be earning like £35,000 a year in order to stay. That's like middle class income.
>>2530933And what's the reason, oh big smart marxist?
>>2530943Not wasting my time with you.
>>2530843Immigration is progressive in the long run but Europe rushed things way too fast during the refugee crisis. Giving the working class some degree of border control should be a no-brainer for socialists as it helps keep the fascoids in check unlike during the chaos that comes from unrestricted immigration. The focus should be on the quality of immigration with people coming to work study and build a life not just those chasing welfare gibs. This way immigrants can actually integrate with the wider society instead of ending up in isolated enclave ghettos.
Seize the means of production.
>>2530954so true, the global south should send the west all their bright students, hard workers, and wealthy proletarian managers, all of them, they should keep the rest behind our people's militarized border though i don't want parasite scum that doesn't add enough value and think they can get healthcare or housing, it's better for them if they stay in the mines, this is the socialist position, like marx said after all, the working men have […] country
>>2530961For 1st world 3rd world to integrate its a necessary step that may hurt your feelings.
Nothing.
>immmigrantAs opposed to some dude from a the city 20 miles away raping a kid? What is being implied here? That he should have been deported already or never been allowed to enter the country, because everyone should have known he was going to do something as fucked up as raping a 10 year old girl? Based on what exactly? Being a migrant (and possibly "brown")?
But here's the thing: Men raping and sexually abusing kids is widespread, and if what I've seen in my own life is any proof, most of it isn't prosecuted. And even when people know about it. It doesn't result in riots and protests by thousands of people every time it happens. It's gross, it shouldn't happen, but that's not really what "anti-immigration" protests are about.
>>2530928>On the other hand, the (native) working class is absolutely anti-immigration.No lol they're not. We're instead whipped into a frenzy against people who look a too different or crossed an imaginary line. There's no innate difference between migrating to a nearby city, as opposed to moving halfway across the world. There's no "fixing" immigration because its innate to how modern capitalism functions; we move away from where we grew up and were born to seek jobs which allow us to pay for a living, which brings us into competition with other workers. Be it those who have lived all their lives wherever we happen to be working, moved in yesterday, as well as workers who aren't even living in the area (see IT workers, etc.).
>>2530966the working class is not allowed to be authentically racist against foreigners?
In the short term, all you can do is minimize the conversation (since it's basically a psyop) and implement reforms to make the system less difficult but also improve integration and deal with fraud/abuse. Until humanity begins to approach an internationalist mindset, people will remain tribalistic and insular, so we can't entirely solve the problem.
>>2530973Funny (no really), but that's not what this is about. Some here are inventing bullshit reasons for why they "oppose immigration".
Now If people wanna to be essentialist ethnonationalist racists, then at least admit it. But pretending there's something uniquely special about moving between countries as opposed to state/province or county lines is bad faith.
>>2530926It sounds like according to you non-whites popped into existence in 2008 or some shit.
>>2530845>>2530926"""Tummy Wubbinson""" (real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) is a Mossad asset, and this is a microcosm of what's actually going on.
There is no "right wing" or "left wing" solution to immigration in the mainstream. Europe, the UK, the US, and much of the world are dominated by totalitarian neoliberalism, which is actually just Fascism if Fascism had actual theory. The "left" and "right" in these places are, in fact, one single group, not separated by supposed ideology (a public-facing charade), but united by subservience to the Military Industrial Complex, global finance capital, and Zionist imperialism, with "Israel" initially serving as a kind of laundromat for the revival of full-throated Fascism, an international supporter of racism and ethnosupremacy for decades which has received bottomless support from "the west" even as western politics tried to distance itself publicly from openly endorsing such attitudes.
Because of this, all western leaders will be completely devoted to creating the material conditions which make it physically impossible to "stop the boats." US/"Israeli" foreign policy is what created and prolonged the Syrian migrant crisis, and the UK and EU leaders would never stop serving the same agenda on any serious level no matter how much they're willing to scapegoat migrants themselves as the cause of the problem. Destabilizing society and using this as a tool to create chaos and divide workers
is the point. Imperialist wars and economic war (as the US has waged against Venezuela and Cuba, even in its own hemisphere) create mass migration, the states pursuing these policies
know this, and, yet, they still use the migrants as a bogeyman when those migrants, now refugees, reach their doorstep.
Once those migrants enter, they are then used as a way to undercut labor laws. As seen in the US, the threat of brutal crackdowns serves less as a means to
stop this and more as a means to terrorize those groups into silence, to keep them as close to chattel slavery as possible (in some cases they have literally been brought in as chattel slaves), and to expand that fear even to workers who have migrated completely legally so that they are as easy to blackmail and manipulate as the ones who would fear deportation due to lack of papers. In the UK, idiotic pogroms based on lies are whipped up against them by fake patriots in league with foreign intelligence, and the state then uses this violence as a pretext for broad totalitarian crackdowns.
Astute observers will note that the organization of """Tummy Wubbinson,""" despite his criminal record, has in recent times faced less repercussions from the Starmerite state for inciting the burning of places of worship, and violent attempted
race war than Palestine Action has faced for a campaign of damaging arms factories which peaked with spraypainting a plane. This is not an accident. Starmer, Farage, """Wobbinson,""" whoever the Tories have now, and the British political state in general are all diehard zionists aligned with the arms industry. No matter who you vote for, you are going to get the same result as long as the financiers of politics in the US, UK, EU, etc. are war profiteers and zionist oligarchs.
The plan to create migrant crises through massive acts of global violence, profit off of said violence, exploit migrant labor, and create domestic chaos & division by using refugees and migrants as scapegoats for the crimes of the imperialist ruling class is
one plan. No politician who supports the wars and claims that they'll stop the migrants themselves from coming in is sincere. These politicians are tools of global power, and they see borders as a useful tool for lulling the working class of western nations into a false sense of security; every such politician knows that these borders are imaginary lines, they do not really care who crosses them, nor does a British politician hold any less contempt for British workers than they do for Palestinian, Syrian, or Iraqi workers. They are going to kill you, they are going to do it brutally, and they will try their best to make it so that in any such scenario there will be large swathes of the working class cheering for the wholesale destruction of "other" swathes of the working class. This will happen the very moment that doing so is no longer an inconvenience, and as the workers destroy the wealth they themselves created, who among them survives at the end will be even more indebted to the enslavers of humanity.
It's embarrassing that there are, allegedly, people on sites like this who sincerely fall for it.
>>2531041I find these critiques (its all an imperialist conspiracy) a lot weaker than explaining why "anti-immigration" is an incoherent stance which obfuscates the actual underlying attitudes and fears. And that it can't be "fixed" because the 'free movement' of labor is inherent to modern capitalism. And that this applies to both intra and international migration.
Whether this is done deliberately by zionist imperialist elites, or if they're simply callous, complacent or ineffectual, is not something I see as relevant in itself.
>>2530877>>2531041I'd say right-wing politics is all about constructing "threats." It can be migrants but it can also be drag queens or atheists or the homeless or really anything that appears alien or "outside" the system (women ruining video games!). The particular content of the chosen scapegoat is less important than the function which is political, economic, and psychological.
I don't go for the conspiracy frame so much as a "strategy" frame, and I think right-wing parties are principally after power and care about dominating the immediate situation and this is one of the tools in their toolkit. It's not just the West either, you see the same tendencies in a lot of countries including India where the BJP constructs Muslims as a threat extending to migrants from Bangladesh.
>>2531062so you would support the restriction of labour if capital was also restricted, thereby erasing the contradiction?
>>2531140
I don't think there's much hatred being expressed but I can sense your resentment.
>>2531135Ccp should crossbreed chinese with africans to create a super race of high autism score bbc ubermenschen
Immigrants are scabs, simple as
>>2531144Not if they get organized.
>>2531151 (me)
Seriously wtf is wrong with you that was a bait
>>2531151who cares it's our job to organise them either way.
>>2531145They are already organized by people who brought them or helped them come by helping them with their visas and paperworks and job finding. Those immigrants are on their employers side already.
>>2531161 (me)
Like most people
>>2531161>Those immigrants are on their employers side already.who cares it's our job to organise them and get them on side anyway.
>>2531161Get this: the employers also
pay them money (usually).
>>2531168If immigrants are scabs so is every local worker
>>2531173They are, fuck workers, they're the ones making capitalists rich after all
>>2531177Whatever you say lumpen transwahman go take your diy drugs
>>2531173I went to McDonald's and learned they have workers who get paid by capitalists. I said to the guy in the drive-thru, I don't want to be part of your system, man.
>>2531174
Ruling class wouldnt have brought them here if you did your duty and mating pressed a woman so she could give birth to little prolelets. Now it is up to Rakesh and Pajeet to improve the demographic you self made cuck
I like that when Marx addressed this in one of his letters, it was specifically addressing Irish immigration into England, now the Irish are the virulent anti-immigration chauvinists, I guess that's how things go. The answer, of course, was the definite blow against the bourgeoisie would happen in Ireland where the impoverished working class was to begin with, without an emancipated working class in Ireland, wage suppression would continue in England indefinitely. I guess Marx was third-worldist lol.
>>2531062>Whether this is done deliberately by zionist imperialist elites, or if they're simply callous, complacent or ineffectual, is not something I see as relevant in itself.Ok, well it's the former. Biden, Trump, Starmer, Sunak, """Tommy Wobbinson,""" Farage, Macron, Rubio, Blinken, Baerbock, etc. all serve exactly the same interests and are paid to do so. The supposed ideological competition between them is completely fake in the same way that the rift between EU leaders and Netanyahu is (they're already rolling back proposed sanctions, and they consistently do less than the bare minimum required of them under the written law to oppose "Israel's" genocide), and the same way that the supposed rift between Netanyahu and the """Israeli opposition""" is, aside from figures like Ofer Cassif who would never become particularly powerful there anyway. It's kabuki theater.
You might not see it as relevant, and that's ok, but for me personally I think that there's some risk to underestimating the enemy, here. Particularly, there was this misconception, very common in the 2000s, that George W. Bush was just a complete moron. Ok, that probably wasn't entirely a misconception; he probably was an idiot.
However, the PATRIOT ACT, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the torture and black sites, the agenda to destroy a long list of countries, the creation of the DHS and ICE were not the products of Dubya's bumbling idiocy, but pre-planned actions of the American state in pursuing its agenda. To attain these, they, with Bush, Jr. as the figurehead, engaged in a series of deliberate deceptions and a campaign of mass censorship and punishment of those who broke ranks. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't a fluke; they did it on purpose then, with the help of the likes of David Cameron, and they're doing it on purpose now. It's no coincidence that we are still, to this day, seeing the reintroduction of figures like David Cameron, Elliott Abrams, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. who have been participating in this stuff at various points for the last 20-40 years.
It's fair to ascribe it all to neoliberal capitalism broadly and cynical pursuit of global capitalist interests, but it's also definitely on purpose and they know what they're doing. If this wasn't the case, then you'd see the US, UK, and Europe freaking out about "Israel" funneling money into violent neo-Fascist astroturf movements the same way that many of these countries freak out about supposed Russian or Chinese influence. Instead, these states work to obfuscate what is going on while using the chaos as an excuse to further bring the boot down upon the workers.
>>2531102>It's not just the West either, you see the same tendencies in a lot of countries including IndiaMost national governments, including that of India, are under de facto US/western hegemony even if they seem independent on the surface. Some are more extreme than others (IE Argentina, El Salvador, Haiti, Egypt, Lebanon, Ukraine, The RoC, and the various tiny island nations which are so weak that they wouldn't even speak a word that contradicts the US agenda), but, in practice, few are entirely removed from the same global political/economic program. There are countries like Iran, Yemen, the DPRK, and Palestine (but not the PA) which do not submit to this, but most countries, including both India and Pakistan, do fall in line to avoid conflict with the United States when it comes down to it. It is, currently, more subtle in states like these than it would have been in the past, but that also means that maintaining these large nations like India & Pakistan as collaborators on largescale imperial projects is more manageable than it would be if the US openly humiliated them all the time in the same the way that it does European countries.
>a foreign national who had been denied asylum and was told to "self-deport" had apparantly raped a 10 year old girl
Sorry but I'm not seeing the connection between the crime and the man's nationality. Natural born citizens rape girls too.
>>2530843I think that communists can, in fact, outflank the right on this issue. The problem is that almost no country has actual communists with a voice any wide masses of people are going to hear.
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 growth instead of making life worse for the workers of the recipient society. Everyone wins. And there is truth to this argument, even if the USSR probably has the record on actual mass migration over a short period of time (1941-1942). But you know what they mean.
Unless this line of thought is espoused mostly by trolls, these far-right people came to that conclusion themselves.
What people here miss is that fascists are not a game mechanic, they are largely very lost people who respect strength. And there is one country that gained a lot of strength over the decades because of the work of their Marxist-Leninist party.
Far more difficult things have been done by communists in the past. A competent Leninist party would have had little issue in this area. Real patriots are a natural fit for the group that wants to save the country. Nationalists were led by communists all over the world during anticolonial and anti-imperial struggles in the 20th century. The much larger issue is the severe crisis of the left.
It's not like the far right has a good track record in this regard. Nazi Germany literally captured millions of slaves, primarily from the USSR, while conditions for their workers deteriorated below the Weimar levels.
>>2531387is it a "right-wing" policy to simply regulate immigration though? the insistence that its right-wing makes it impossible to talk about.
>2530843
>apparantly
did it happen or not?
>>2531109No. The only way to stop this entirely is tie workers to their workplaces and neighborhoods, and prevent anything from seeking work outside of their immediate community. Which I'm not in favor of.
>>2531140>answersWe should organize pogroms? When a working class dad rapes his daughter should we do that too?
>>2531320>underestimating the enemyI think there are two issues here, one is misidentifying who the 'enemy' is (it's not particular members of the bourgeoisie, which are continuously replaced - including Epstein - not if you want to talk structurally). The other is how all this conspiracy (even if true) and geopol stuff obfuscates why people participate in anti-migrant or race riots. Which has more to do with fear of the Other and the Juissance found in ethnic hatred, and moral panic. And especially its most orgyastic libertine expression: the Pogrom.
"Mass immigration" doesn't require nefarious conspiracies on part of fascistic pedophillic satanic zionist billionaire oligarchs.
The same processes are happening in China, India, Nigeria and other places. Rural to urban migration and people moving between regions. And also happened in European states, North America and Japan in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
>>2531387People still migrated to and between the 'ethnic' SSRs. Moving to Moscow itself was difficult due to how jobs and apartments were allocated in the city.
I'm seeing a lot of thinly veiled "what if we had bantustans but leftist"?
>>2531399
and?
>>2531435 the problem is its like hey theres this one wild trick where we can funnel these far righters into communism.
>>2531387Found the hazoid
a lot of you guys are saying the right will never bother stopping immigration but drumpf has essentially stopped illegal crossings along the mexican border
>>2530848Why are you scared to say that you are in the US? The feds aren't targetting you
I don't know about other european countries but england can get burned down to hell.
>>2531428>I think there are two issues here, one is misidentifying who the 'enemy' is (it's not particular members of the bourgeoisie, which are continuously replaced - including Epstein - not if you want to talk structurally).I didn't say that it was.
In the section which addresses attitudes about Bush, see if you think that I identify a single villain who is solely at fault. What I'm talking about are the machinations of the state, and those have not actually been subject to any real change for a very long time. The reason I point to recurring characters is to illustrate that
the agenda hasn't changed, that there is an underlying plan which has been in progress for a very long time. They know what they're doing, and that's why they keep doing it.
>The other is how all this conspiracy (even if true) and geopol stuff obfuscates why people participate in anti-migrant or race riots. Which has more to do with fear of the Other and the Juissance found in ethnic hatred, and moral panic. And especially its most orgyastic libertine expression: the Pogrom. Actually it's the opposite.
Reducing this to an explanation akin to "human nature" is misguided. States' power is specifically funding and propping up the European ""nationalist"" movement. Mass media plays a very deliberate roll in encouraging it. Within the states where these things occur, the "opposition" to it, even from positions of power, wilfully handle it with kid gloves, even when the ""nationalist"" movements are smaller (and more violent) than movements which western governments choose to aggressively suppress.
All the time, people argue that countries like Venezuela and Cuba struggle economically simply because
socialism is bad - but the problem here isn't that Cuba and Venezuela differ in their approach to property rights and the role of the state and of workers. The problem here is that the US government has been engaged in economic war against these nations for many years. Whether or not they would thrive without the US state intervening to attack their economies, no honest assertion can just totally discount the action of the American state and reduce the economic hardships to the supposed consequences of communism or human nature or whatever. Even if someone
believes that to be the case, it simply is not what's going on.
The reality, which is not a
conspiracy theory or whatever, is that the US & "Israel" have been using state power to funnel money into these ethnonationalist astroturf campaigns abroad. That's what happened. Pretending like they are a totally organic thing which sprung up out of the ground without a bunch of foreign coordination, and without the complicity of the "liberals" in the political machine of states where this has occurred is simply not correct. If it wasn't happening, then we could speculate about what
natural human urges were causing it, but
it is happening, so this dismissal of the current reality is just being obtuse. It's not the first time that Fascist states have propped up other Fascist movements abroad. It's not like the "Israeli" state is even shy about this at this point, and the US has long been known to run right wing ops all over the world.
>"Mass immigration" doesn't require nefarious conspiracies on part of fascistic pedophillic satanic zionist billionaire oligarchs. No one said "Satanic."
Also, the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, etc.
absolutely did require the specific actions taken by western states. The chaos, and mass migration, in western Asia was caused by their actions, actions they had planned since
at least the 1990s. The migration from Venezuela which occurred as a result of US sanctions was a thing which people
in the first Trump admin
predicted would happen, even as they eagerly enacted those very same policies which caused that economic hardship for Venezuelans. This isn't in dispute.
We aren't talking about
some other period of mass migration which had no discernible state actions as root causes, we're talking about mass forced displacement knowingly perpetrated by the very same state powers who then, reliably, use the people they've displaced as both political scapegoats and extra-cheap labor. When doing this creates chaos domestically, they use it as a pretext to crack down on the general public more and expand their own powers over speech and privacy and assembly.
>>2530877What about Trump? His policies have tanked immigration into the US.
>>2531575It's literally all fanfare and no action. He's deporting less than Obama and people are still coming in illegally. He also increased immigration from India
>>2531602Source? Counting all the people that were blacksited and disappeared?
>>2531341This is true, I heard an Irishman in his 70s was up in court for 20+ counts of noncery too.
I think why lumpens are chimping out is because there's a huge push from the global right networks to sow dissent in Western European states by pushing Great Replacement, Globalist conspiracies, etc and those jobless retards believe it. However, events like this galvanise these peoples beliefs and the government really doesn't help itself when foreigners commit violent/sexual acts and then they're left holding the bag with their pants down. It's almost like FG/FF want far right protests to go ahead.
>>2531641If you think Trump is secretly committing a mass slaugther of people at black sites, then who cares what you think. Have fun believing whatever you feel like
>>2531681>Have fun believing whatever you feel likeyou mean like you are doing pretending immigration hasn't been lowered the past year?
>>2531681I didn't say I believed anything else than masses of people being sent to black sites, moved around and kept from attorneys and family which is reported by multiple media investigations, lawyers, family members and is effictively making them disapear. I'm glad you work at the DHS and know where everyone is though, probably should tell their families and lawyers!
>>2531190Marx and Engels' position is not the same as that of Third Worldists who refuse to organize for the common interest of all workers of all nationalities, regressing to a moralistic position of pity for Third World workers and resentment against First World workers.
Let's begin with the text addressing the issue of Irish and English workers at the time:
<I shall give you here only quite briefly the salient points.
<Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.
<If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English.
<As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account.
<But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, 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.
<And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
<This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.
<But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.
<England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.
<These are roughly the main points of the circular letter, which thus at the same time give the raisons d’étre of the resolutions passed by the Central Council on the Irish amnesty.[…]
We hit another bird with the same stone, we have forced the Irish leaders, journalists, etc., in Dublin to get into contact with us, which the General Council had been unable to achieve previously!
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.
<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New Yorkhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htmRemembering that Marx and Engels favored uniting all workers of all nationalities, including immigrants, to fight together for the communist revolution and their shared class interests, separatism was not acceptable to them without some material conditions. Irish separatism was an acceptable alternative due to English chauvinism, which hindered the organization of the English and Irish proletariat. This prejudice stemmed from the intensified subjugation of Irish workers. If the alternative to a joint revolution in Britain is the continuation of this subjugation of the Irish, then Irish independence would be an option for a future socialist federation on more equal terms between the Irish and English.
I'll post the text where you can read "The Question of the General Council's Resolution on the Irish Amnesty" if you're interested in reading it, which explains this point:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/03/28.htm>>2530843Now, to answer the question about immigration, I will first cite the general position that differentiates communists from other working-class parties in the manifesto:
<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmLet's look at practical examples of a political program in an election in a bourgeois democracy, with texts by Marx and Engels that fit what is written:
<(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
<(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<1. One rest day each week or legal ban on employers imposing work more than six days out of seven. - Legal reduction of the working day to eight hours for adults. - A ban on children under fourteen years working in private workshops; and, between fourteen and sixteen years, reduction of the working day from eight to six hours;<2. Protective supervision of apprentices by the workers' organizations;<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;<4. Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;[…]
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;<8. Prohibition of all interference by employers in the administration of workers' friendly societies, provident societies, etc., which are returned to the exclusive control of the workers;<9. Responsibility of the bosses in the matter of accidents, guaranteed by a security paid by the employer into the workers' funds, and in proportion to the number of workers employed and the danger that the industry presents;<10. Intervention by the workers in the special regulations of the various workshops; an end to the right usurped by the bosses to impose any penalty on their workers in the form of fines or withholding of wages (decree by the Commune of 27 April 1871);
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htmNow let's look at Lenin's quotes for those who pretend the Bolsheviks didn't have workers of various nationalities or refused to organize immigrant workers:
<We can demand popular election of officers, abolition of all military law, equal rights for foreign and native-born workers (a point particularly important for those imperialist states which, like Switzerland, are more and more blatantly exploiting larger numbers of foreign workers, while denying them all rights). Further, we can demand the right of every hundred, say, inhabitants of a given country to form voluntary military-training associations, with free election of instructors paid by the state, etc.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: IIIhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/iii.htm
<6) Freedom of movement and occupation.
<7) Abolition of the social estates; equal rights for all citizens irrespective of sex, creed, race, or nationality.[…]
<12) Replacement of the standing army by the universally armed people.
<12) The police and standing army to be replaced by the universally armed people; workers and other employees to receive regular wages from the capitalists for the time devoted to public service in the people’s militia.[…]
<In the endeavour to achieve its immediate aims, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political set-up in Russia, but at the same time emphatically rejects all reformist projects involving any expansion or consolidation of the guardianship of the police and bureaucracy over the labouring masses.
<V. I. Lenin, 1917, Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programmehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htmFrom here, you can already see that any excuse anyone gives to increase the repressive power of the bourgeois state under any pretext must be opposed by communists. Remember that the proletarian state has the right to use its revolutionary terror to socialize the economy and punish counterrevolutionaries as it pleases, since the state is an instrument of one class to oppress another.
There are many possible actions to be taken with wage equalization, unionization of all workers, the right to radical unionization to organize outside the control of the bourgeoisie or its state, advancement of the legal right to public defense, democratization of the legal and judicial process in addition to the guaranteed public legal right to legal processes for all workers to fight in solidarity together, adding to this with the socialization of needs so that the population has the right to housing, education, health, childcare as a social responsibility of the entire society instead of being at the mercy of all of this that will remain as commodities for profit in the market.
>>2530845This. Don't quote me but I remember studies proving rightoids always automatically benefit from immigration being the topic
>>2531710Why I trust two sources that both have lied on this issue frequently and both have a monetary incentive to lie about the numbers?
>>2531714You're delusional
>>2531387>A competent Leninist party would have had little issue in this area. Real patriots are a natural fit for the group that wants to save the country. There was a period in which communists organized patriotic fronts but I think the reason that worked is that it was occurring in a context of German, Italian, and Japanese invasions and setting up fascist puppet governments. Like in Bulgaria. It's not really the same thing as winning over "real patriots" to kick immigrants, who are being kicked plenty from what I can tell from the Proud Boys joining ICE in my country. They're high on the hog and have no reason to join a communist party (for one, they actually get paid by the government to do this).
>Nationalists were led by communists all over the world during anticolonial and anti-imperial struggles in the 20th century.And that's true, but "during anticolonial and anti-imperial struggles in the 20th century" is an important qualifiying statement.
>>2531742>This. Don't quote me but I remember studies proving rightoids always automatically benefit from immigration being the topicI think the same holds for centrist and center-left parties. Kamala Harris actually campaigned on being tougher on the border than Trump, but she lost. There's a funny (albeit tragic and a bit sad) thing that I see anons do where they'll say real communists are not like those leftards and they propose basically doing what Ezra Klein says the Democrats should do.
>>2531838>Kamala Harris actually campaigned on being tougher on the border than Trump, but she lost. What is your point here? She was obviously lying
>>2531837And it takes a constant barrage of chuddy propaganda in msm to get those negative numbers, almost like we are basically apatride hippies when stripped of spooks
Leftists got psyopped by capitalists into being pro immigration and therefore destroyed their ability to be popular with the working class (including with the first and 2nd gen immigrant working class)
Now they cope with this by soft nihilism (third worldism, China navel gazing, taking sides in random wars around the world).
>>2531891 (me)
Admitting you were taken for a ride on immigration and changing your position is the kind of Mao-to-Deng course changing and learning-from-mistakes that the Left can make to improve its chances of success in politics (both electoral and non electoral).
>>2531853The proof is in the pudding. Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany has tried to do this sorta-left politics but with social conservatism and migration restrictions, but she hasn't performed well. Because if migration is your #1 issue, why not vote for the AfD? Die Linke meanwhile did better than expected on a cost-of-living platform.
I don't think Zohran Mamdani is a revolutionary BTW (and also different country / context) but he's an immigrant who is just blowing the competition out of the water.
You know I think Wagenknecht was partly a creation of the German media. I'm not German and don't know a lot about it, but she was on T.V. a lot. Well, the media likes lefty renegades who say right-wing things for a bourgeois audience that doesn't want to think of themselves as right-wing ogres. Mamdani was hated by the New York press including the New York Times. Billionaire-funded dark money groups (with funds from Bill ACK-man) tried to present him as this menacing, dark-looking foreigner who hates the Jews. Again, an alien. Now the NYT is starting to be nice to him because he's going to be the next mayor.
>>2531891Such a good idea, yet our girl kamala the border czar lost… I know! Tthe left needs to reject women too to finally get the gusano vote and win?
>>2531804>Why I trust two sources that both have lied on this issue frequently and both have a monetary incentive to lie about the numbers?I dont like the fact this source disagrees with my narrative so its untrue
>>2531341Still waiting for an explanation from OP what the connection is between a person's legal citizenship status and their propensity for acts of sexual violence.
>>2531853Well, when you're willing to throw one group of people under the bus, why should anyone trust you? Again, the issue isn't the migrants (who are often just struggling families seeking a better life), but the role that the "migrants" play in your own politics, which are necessary to sustain your own politics in some kind of way, and which can also be substituted for some other "alien" group.
Wagenknecht is also a good counter to the idea that people are just not exposed to these ideas. I'd need someone from Germany to weigh in but it seems like she got a lot more airtime and magazine profiles written up on her than Heidi Reichinnek did (tattooed leftard apparently hated by the workers, who led her party to its best result in years)
>>2531933Because whos gonna trust a left party to be truly Anti immigration when they left in general has been pro immigration for 40 years? Still BSW got 5% of the popular vote which is impressive for a brand new party in a country with like 10 major political parties. Sure AOC clones can win a lot more seats in progressive places around the US but that's not actually going to help socialism at all.
>>2532374>brand new party<look inside>chuddy die linke splitNah racist trostkyists will again be irrelevant this time
>>2532402To be clear, here is the actual vote share result compared to last election
CDU/CSU (talked about curbing migration, and has actually taken concrete steps to do after election) - 28% from 24%
AfD (no comment needed) - 20% from 10%
SPD (talked about curbing migration but was responsible for migration for many years so no one trusted them) - 16% from 25%
Die Linke (didn't talk migration, focused on left economics) - 9% from 5%
BSW (anti migration and also focused on left economics ) 5% from 0%
Greens (part of the former ruling coalition that brought migration into Germany over many years) 11% from 14%
FDP (part of the former ruling coalition, pro migration) - 4% from 11%.
So overall, the pro migration and former parties that brought migration suffered severely. Anti migration parties increased a lot.
It's extremely obvious that migration is the single biggest thing affecting politics of all Western countries. If Trump had his exact same policies but was pro migration he wouldn't have won even 2% of the popular vote.
You can keep ignoring this reality by pretending that edge cases like Die Linke matter.
>>2531949It's so true Trump is considering anmesty for illegals like Reagan. His deportation order does not cover the agrucultural, service, or hospitality industry.
https://cis.org/Richwine/Oped-Trumps-New-Amnesty-Would-Cover-About-Two-Million-Illegal-Immigrants >>2531933>>2531956Pointing to someone who is also obviously lying is stupid. Why would they fare well in polling or get any votes, it's extremely transparent. The fact that the media tries to split of voters from anti-immigration parties, does not make the left seem like any kind of resistance to oligarchs.
>>2530843<what do we do?abolish capitalism and seize the means of production
>>2531891How did you get psyoped? What were you watching to become brainwashed?
Let every single person in and give them a nice house, anyone who complains gets shot
>>2531040I agree that anti-immigration sentiment didn't define politics in let's say the '70s as it does today, even though some European societies were already mixed at that point (mostly the countries with the biggest colonial empires).
The relatively recent deterioration in living conditions and increased competition for well-paying jobs coincided with greatly increased immigration. No matter how you analyze it, workers WILL connect the most immediate societal change they see (more non-white on the streets) with the difficulties they have with making a living, if they aren't already being lead by a vanguard (and in 2015 the vast majority wasn't).
What do we do about the international jewish conspiracy my fellow leftists, you can see that Herr "totenkopf" Platner has a lot of votes, when will the left stop be psyoped by the (((globalists))) and tackle this question? This is why we loose you know!
Humans are supposed to migrate around the world. We've done it for 300,000 years. Why should we have to stop now?
>>2535931humans have been killed for 300,000 years for migrating where their not wanted too.
Immigration is ok. It is under bourge, I just want to work less, so for me, as an immigrant, it is no use. Low paid, long hours. For me as a citizen, it is no use! I can't find anything that is not full work day.
>>2535940>humans have been killed for 300,000 years for migrating where their not wanted too.No, that's actually a rather recent phenomenon.
>>2536313>its muh human natureWhat do we do about defecation?
>>2535931Go migrate to a non-white country then
>>2536295How the fuck do you know?
>>2536984The modern concept of borders and citizenship did not exist until the 19th century and the era of nation-states.
>>2537064pretty sure the concept of killing foreigners is as old as humanity
>>2537077historically, more often foreigners were the ones doing the killing (logic, you dont move toward people more dangerous than yourself), and displaced population often happened because they themselves were getting invaded and killed by kingdoms/empires in expansion and so went the other direction to settle.
But mostly population movement were peaceful, because more people settling land was beneficial to local powers as long as they werent a challenge to the local rule, because shit wasnt centralized and standardized at all, and everything was very local so a guy from 1000km away wasnt that much different from a guy 100km away
so approaching this with a modern mindset is a bit ridiculous
>>2530926<My greatest hope is that a red-brown coalition saves the day (after all growing the economy by forcing enterprises to invest in labour-saving technology as part of national plan is the only way to actually end immigration, not by achieving growth by increasing the mass of exploited people by bringing them from abroad), but that would be pretty hard to achieve if the basis of the identity of the left and right is hating each other.uh, you had me until this line. Red-Brown is fucking stupid and after the immigrants the left is next on the list of people to exterminate if history is any guide
>>2531717<Marx and Engels' position is not the same as that of Third Worldists who refuse to organize for the common interest of all workers of all nationalities, regressing to a moralistic position of pity for Third World workers and resentment against First World workers.some versions of third worldist is radlib white guilt wrapped in marxist language
>>2530926I am the fascist who made the other thread and I agree with this. Too bad that it won't happen. Just to let you know i will probably sympathise with you when we get rid of all the non whites owo
>>2537064The concept of territorial behaviour goes back to chimpanzees
castrate rapists
simple as
>>2530926we should be pro-immigration. not because it's a le good thing to do, but because it's important for leveling the value of labor power. we should couple increased immigration with policies that dispossesses the peasantry worldwide. this would be an excellent way to push history forwards
>My greatest hope is that a red-brown coalition saves the dayconsider necking yourself
>>2537814Yeah but the "territory" would be a pond or a bush or a dead animal, not an entire fucking continent.
>>2537077Until quite recently in history, almost everyone in the world was a foreigner to everyone else. If you travelled more than 50 miles in any direction you would be in a foreign land with foreign people speaking a foreign language.
>>2530848>Job: TeacherLel
>>2537859There isn't a industrial base for a socialist economy isn't there yet in Eastern Europe, trying to force a revolution would be retarded.
It might work in western europe where the tension between the burgeoise and worker's have boiled which may result in a revolution
>>2538444To clarify as to why Eastern Europe isn't ready, it is because they live in a semi-peripheral state; in other words, they are integrated into global capitalism mainly through foreign-owned industries, service sectors, and cheap labour markets.
Therefore, our capital is mainly controlled by foreign corporations and is domestically weak, as well as the fact that unions are either co-opted by the neoliberal or just too weak.
We would first need to use coercive power to state power and policy to (a) steer foreign investment toward upgrading local capacity, which would be done by using FDI screening, targeted conditions, and industrial policy to steer foreign firms to upgrade local supply chains,
(b) build domestic productive actors via industrial policy and public finance i.e., subsidies, public procurement, concessional finance and tech support for domestically headquartered firms and worker cooperatives in sectors where the region can be competitive
(c) strengthen labour and cooperative institutions
Only after we managed to do that could we be ready for market socialism.
>>2538451you're right that development is needed. but to preclude at the outset the possibility of revolution is silly. after all, Russia in 1917 was extremely backwards
>>2538444>There isn't a industrial base for a socialist economy isn't there yet in Eastern Europe, trying to force a revolution would be retarded. you mean like in the soviet union?
>>2537859>lowering wages is progressivewhat?
>>2537064this is true. as i show here:
>>2524559the decline of empire generally coincides with increased nationalism, since empire in itself must be international.
>What do we do about immigration?
Speed up the bureaucratic process for legal migration and require every migrant to join a union.
>>2538577what would constitute illegal immigration?
>>2538578People who'd repeatedly avoid this process legal migration.
>>2538582and the only law is to join a union?
>>2538584Join a union and work for a certain amount of time, of course. If you have health conditions that make it impossible to work, or if you're a child or a single parent escaping war or genocide, you would be freed from this requirement. That is also assuming that the nature of work isn't as inhumane as currently under capitalism. Ideally, you would have a 30-hour work week in general, universal health/childcare and the workplace would be democratized at the very least.
>>2538542t. Robert Conquest
>>2531543What I'm saying goes beyond the machinations of the state. I'm outright saying it doesn't matter what the "real" reason is behind (mass) migration.
I'm concerned with
why people care at all. Which says a lot more about them than whatever system they think they're living in.
I also don't buy into this "the media told me this!" excuse people come up with. Like I was browsing r/europe (inb4 >reddit) earlier today, and there was this woman who admitted she "was racist" when she was poor, but then she started to do a little better and then "lol I was no longer racist" because she wasn't "competing" (with those "ethnics") anymore.
The assumption here is that it's reasonable at all to share this attitude. Natural even! (as one commenter stated) But it isn't. Because when I was in her place, what I felt was
solidarity. And not even when I was out on the streets and could barely afford to buy bread did I blame "brown people", jews, women, etc. for what I was experiencing.
I also don't see see the value in pointing out who's doing it, as opposed to critiquing the attitude itself (immigration as something to be "solved", xenophobia and racism as 'natural' responses to poverty). Saying its a zionist ethnonationalist propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it's false.
>>2538691as i have already said, the volk are racist
there is nothing more to it
>>2538451>>2538444>>2538516Nirvana-attainer analysis. Consider this instead:
https://c4ss.org/content/24150What is the social basis of capitalism? Social relations mediated through capital and the commodity form. So why would abolishing this have anything to do with "building the productive forces"?
>>2531717I think entertaining separatism even in face of (bourgeois) chauvinism is a mistake. As seen in the USSR. The alternative is splitting the world into a collection of bantustans, which is what we have today: Capital moves (mostly) freely, workers (mostly) don't. And this is the true goal of separatism; the creation of new plantations where the new nascent national capital and its bourgeoisie can exploit its workers.
There's nothing worthwhile or salvageable in nationalism as a "socialist" project.
>>2538696Maybe some people are more easily frightened than others, but thinking this makes a good argument against immigration (brown people bad!) is bad faith. Or at the very least, the people who think like this aren't
owning their racism. Instead they do this thing where they pretend their tribalism is only natural, or they tell you to stare at the graphs they copied from facebook or their tabloid of choice. Whilst none of that explains their attitude itself.
The issue here is a lack of introspection and (moral) courage. You can see this in OP where there's the assumption it's only reasonable to assume an immigrant who was told to leave the country was going to sexual assault a kid. And immigration is something the "left" has to solve.
>>2538691Some people straight up don't like the way foreigners look, their cultures, their food, their language/accent. That makes up like 50% of anti immigration. Another 50% is economic, like competition for jobs or welfare smooching etc. Do you really not know this?
>>2538743>Or at the very least, the people who think like this aren't owning their racism>The issue here is a lack of introspection and (moral) courage. precisely, but there is a dilemma here, where many people may genuinely be racist, or even conditionally racist (e.g. my mate is black) yet it is profoundly un-civil to be openly racist (something these people implicitly recognise). so then, is it "better" to live in an openly racist society, or a society of closet racists?
>>2530954No, stop immigration, its brain drain for the global south and a tool of imperialism
>>2538729>c4ss.orgglowies
>>2530954As a far rightist it's funny to me that it took you this long to figure out that mass immigration worked in our favour. Really makes you think.
>What do we do about immigration?
Murder every anti-immigrant rightoid
That is the only real solution
>>2539715Powerful truth nuke, draining the smart, bright and hard working people that would help developed the global south so they work some big corporation in the north is a bad idea just make the global south shitty in the long run.
>>2542706Cope, unrestricted immigration is bad
>>2542712Cope, splitters get shot too, socdems get hanged with their families
>>2542713nice power fantasy but you'll do nothing
>>2542713>kill kill kill Schizo, in the end only will you get shot and killed with this retarded mentality
>>2542713>aaaaaaaahhhhh people don't agree with my ideas!!! I MUST KILL THEM!So progressive, tolerant and non fascist thinking there, bro
>>2542713this is iron 'phallus' felix under a new nom du guerre?
>>2542715Maybe not but I can at least beat a red-brown to death when we’re in the prison camp together since it turns out making propaganda against immigrants won’t always save you
>>2542718Communists fully believe in killing their enemies, coward
Those who would beg the bourgeoisie state to imprison and target proletarians (which migrants are) while pretending to be a socialist, should be shot outright, and it should be a crime to mourn them; their crime wasn’t ignorance, but attempting to destroy the working class
>>2542716If I take even one person like you down with me it was fully worth it
Every red-brown deserves death
>>2542731Drop the tough guy act it's embarrassing for everyone.
>>2542733You only think this is a “tough guy act” because you fully believe proletarian revolution is impossible and that your fascist brethren will successfully slaughter the workers every single time
But remember
The communists only need to win once, and when they do, people like you will fucking die in the thousands
>>2542731Cringe take, you are not in a war, kiddo, you' are not a revolution, you're in a anonymous leftist imageboard, stop the edgy act, kid, and grow up
>>2542739>Hehe I will just continue reiterating that the world cannot change, eternal 90s, and my own fear of violence, that’s how I’ll win!I promise you being shot in the throat by a communist is better than dying of cancer in 40 years
>>2542739Don’t go public you might get Kirk’d
>>2542741>>2542742Yeah yeah, than go on and act like lone wolf schizo and get killed, very productive way of change the society, wow, that would show the true power of leftist to the masses!
>>2542737>If we win we're committing mass murdersure we are fellow leftist!
>>2538444This is image is cropped yeah? There is a mention of chastity cages on original uncropped image
>>2542713leninhat is that you?
>>2536984Because humans have been migrating with the animals they hunt and the change of seasons for 99% of their existence.
>>2542991with sedentary farming, fixed territories and the breeding of livestock obviously replaced nomadism.
>>2538566Guess what, automation also lowers wages.
>>2542996And humans had pretty extensive trade networks since sedentary life started. Tin came from the "tin isles" what is now Britain, reaching the Middle East in the Bronze Age.
>>2542998automation raises wages…
>>2543003Just put the tin in the bag bro
>>2543005My point being, humans have always been migrating, trading, exchanging cultures, languages, ressources and technologies.
>>2543004It raises wages by unemploying 90% of the factory floor?
>>2543007who is richer? the worker in the country with the most automation or the worker in the country with the least automation? it should be empirically verifiable, no?
>>2543009What happens with the people losing their jobs because of automation, shouldn't their wages fall?
>>2543014you get a new job, presumably.
or you get gibs from the welfare state, which as a nation you can affprd due to higher productivity.
>>2543006but not in the same way throughout all history
>>2543026Actually, it was the same way throughout history, even intesifying in feudalism, as the Catholic church forced peasants to marry outside of their native village and the European apprentice system expecting trainees to wander across Europe and find employment far away.
>>2543023>you get a new job, presumably.Lol
>>2543030so muh human nature and nothing ever happens?
thats your enlightened take?
>>2543035Hmmm, what do you think should happen?
Limit immigration by helping developing the country of origins of the immigrants, it not the solution push millions of immigrants from a totally different culture to fit in a country where their way of life and culture clash with the host country causing animosity between ethnic groups
>>2530843Politicians are the biggest issue, but immigration is also a big issue. Change things in politics by implementing prison sentences, heavy fines, banned from entering politics, for politicians who lie and cause issues for the people of the country. Millions suffer, and the politicians just say oh well we tried. That's not good enough. Maybe then we'll get to the truth of things, and have a PM say I was just doing as told I don't really have much say in things.
>>2530843i mean, do you think a european country should deport white rapists as well? what is really the difference between an immigrant committing a sexual assault or rape, and a citizen committing a sexual assault or rape? Why do we have to deport rapists that are brown, but not ones that are white? Is it not enough to put rapists in prison on equal terms, without differentiating based on citizenship status?
like, the whole framing has an attitude of 'dirty browns violate our pure white women', as if white people don't rape also. i don't see what immigration or citizenship has to do with this, at all.
>>2543070>PMWhy are britbongs so racists. Great replacement isn't real but I sure wish it was when I read xenophobic posts by angloids
>>2543076They do deport rapists that are white, retard.
>>2543077>Great replacement isn't real but I sure wish it wasAnother great win for the left, i see
>>2543037we are discussing history and anthropology.
i like to reference xenophon's "on revenues" (355 B.C.) in how cosmopolitan the attitude was, where foreigners were desired to come in and spend their money (while slaves worked). this attitude was economic common sense until the mercantilist turn at the origins of capitalism, as we may read in antoine montchretien (1615), where he suggests that france take note as to the attitude of the dutch and the english in regard to building up national industry. this imperial consciousness of international competition gives rise to later nationalism (1789-) which is not simply a territorial notion, but also one of class. the aristocracy for example, pertained to a fraternal internationalism (the same promoted by nietzsche), while labour and capital could not afford to be so overtaken by mutual nicety. in engels' "condition of the working class" (1845) he describes the character of the irish immigrant competing against the english and the antagonism which naturally spawns. marx continues on this later on in a letter to sigfrid meyer (9 april, 1870), saying that while there can be reconciliation, it is ultimately harmful and counter-revolutionary to house immigrants in england at the expense of the national liberation of the irish, as against their english colonisers. it is in the mutual interest of the workers to have the irish back in ireland by conquering the english aristocracy, and that without this, as he writes to engels, "the english working class will never accomplish anything" (11 december, 1869). in kevin passmore's "fascism" (2002) he begins by describing the origins of fascism in france (1893) in the aigues-mortes massacre of italian immigrant workers. this sense of competition between workers led to the murder of the foreigners and a political platform of "national socialism" by maurice barrès, (1898). later we have rudolf jung's "Der Nationale Sozialismus" (1919), giovanni gentile's "Origini e dottrina del fascismo" (1929) and ᴉuᴉlossnW's "doctrine of fascism" (1932). from bordiga's "report on fascism" (1922) he claims that there were proletarian elements involved in fascism's origin, such as anarchists and syndicalists. in all this is a new nationalism, which is modern and capitalist in its considerations. international capitals compete from their separate empires as workers internalise this struggle as their own, with marx even seeing political immobility as symptomatic of it all.
what is different in the past is the relationship people had with foreigners. in homer's "odyssey", book 6 (800 B.C.) we odysseus greeted with "xenia" (hospitality) by nausicaa in her kingdom, despite odysseus being a naked, penniless stranger. odysseus is taken by the king, offered many gifts and even a wife. in the medieval poem "sir gawain and the green knight", book 2-3 (1380) we see an identical ethos taken toward gawain at the request of safe-haven from the wilderness, where he is even offered a wife and stay at the castle. here, the stranger is not treated economically, that is, competitively for resources, but he is in fact given free resources as gifts by people. a hometown can be unwelcoming, which is a common struggle we have today as well as in ancient times, as Jesus tells us:
>Then he said, “The truth is, a prophet is not accepted in his own hometown."<luke 4:24here then, we see a fundamental unrootedness that people possess in their subjectivity and reputation.
not all strangers are innocent however, but travel may often being violence and theft. we possibly see the greatest migration in ancient greek history occur in homer's "iliad" book 2 (800 B.C.) where about 144,000 greeks travel to troy to conquer it. we see too that the distrust of foreigners doesnt just become momentary, but mythologised by fantasies of revenge. in geoffrey of monmouth's "histories of the kings of britain", book 7 (1136) and prophetiæ merlin (1130) we see the saxons portrayed as a dragon to be defeated by a second coming of king arthur (a prophecy partially sated by the norman conquest in 1066). mythic racism also occurs in the book of genesis where the descendants of ham (canaanites) are said to be cursed, fulfilled by the israelite conquest over them described in the book of joshua. in virgil's "aeneid" (20 B.C.) we also see a mythic origin of rome where aeneas fled from the greeks after the fall of troy to eventually found rome - so the greek and roman civilisations have this antagonism. the mythic origin of britain also has trojan origin, with brutus of troy, a descendant of aeneas, said to have founded britain, as reported in "Historia Britonum" (828) by nennius and in "historia regum britanniae" (1136).
so then, in this there are many different contexts involved in the question of migration and nationality. i dont think it can all said to be the same and so it cannot all said to have the same prescription. i hope the ethos of xenia will win out and we may all be hospitable to one another, but things are forced to be different in a competitive world.
>>2543110Youre just angry you can't fit more dicks in your mouth, no need to take it out on me.
Immigration is encouraged to keep the line going up. Real estate values inflate, wages stay lower, GDP goes up. If this isn't a left wing issue then you're CIA
>>2543128Not angry bud just patiently waiting for airstrip one to be less white
Amazing how half of this board just folds when it comes to immigration
>>2543023>due to higher productivityLOL
>>2543164Race/ragebaiting people online isn't a good look when combined with the words you said. If you weren't angry, you wouldn't be here trying to wind people up.
>>2543174Well yeah it's legit funny to wind up the racist tourists who use concern trolling to push their imbecile theories about immigrants, zog, race etc. We don't deport anyone on leftypol though but they're free to crawl back to the shithole they came from anytime though if they ever want to walk the talk.
>>2530843>this wouldn't be an issue if western corps weren't raping the third worldSweden, my favourite neocolonial power!
I don’t know what the answer is but it’s not deportation by jackbooted thugs
>>2543198what if we deported said jackbooted thugs? 🤔
>>2543185How am I racist?
>>2543038You forgot to defend the labor and civil rights of immigrant workers by forcing capitalists to stop exploiting and controlling these immigrant workers more intensely, with financial penalties for the capitalist, financial compensation for the immigrant, the government, and unions, and mandatory unionization for the immigrant. This will discourage this exploitation.
Did you forget what I posted?
>>2531717 >>2543198We have to crash this global imperialist structure with no survivors
>>2543185Weird how you've gone quiet after showing g you're the real racist out of the 2 of us.
You've embarrassed yourself. Well done.
We should keep calling everyone who wants it to be slightly lower Nazis, not create counter points and insult them a lot. That has been very successful so far in winning people over
>>2543271Anti white racism is not a thing
>>2543141It's not a left-wing issue when it's inconvenient, it's a left-wing issue when leftists want to champion mass non-white immigration.
>>2543423This is why the left is pro-mass immigration, you're just anti-white
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) who the fuck is "we" lol
>>2530843>open bordersthis isnt a thing anywhere. all countries have some sort of immigration policy and will always do under capitalism
>>2543423This never made sense to me. Prejudice against whites is acceptable because it doesn't fight this technical definition of racism which is limited by today's racist power structures?
>>2543435There are hardly any leftists, you mean liberals
>>2543436Great replacing the crackers is just a bonus
>>2543423You're clueless, it's quite funny, but also quite worrying, as you truly believe these things.
What do you think now the world is becoming aware of what you lot are? Or maybe not "you lot", just you noisy maniacs.
>>2543460Fragile comment, the world is 86% non white and increasing, and we are not here to pander to whining minorities on the way out.
>>2543441
Lmao you’re trapped with a fat Zionist president you hate and nobody likes you
>>2543512Again, you're making it about race. You're (out of the 2 of us), the one focusing on race, while calling me the racist. Do you project this much IRL?
The irreversible effects of climate change have already guaranteed that every developed nation in the world will be overrun with hundreds of millions of refugees displaced by rising sea levels, famine, and political/economic collapse; nothing in the world will be able to stop this flood of immigrants, it will be human migration on a scale not seen since prehistoric times, all of the border agents and militaries of the world will be utterly powerless to stop refugees pouring into their country, to the point where our entire conception of nations and borders will become largely meaningless. It may even force a total restructuring of our civilization if national governments fail to prevent their countries from collapsing, the erosion of the nation-state and regression back to city-states as the wealthiest people retreat into major urban centers and wall themselves off from the rabble outside.
The climate refugees that will become more and more numerous over the next decades will be from all over the world; South Asia, India, Pakistan, Africa, the Middle East, all the low-lying island nations, major coastal cities in every country, not to mention all the internal migration that will be happening in large countries with diverse geography. Many of the climate migrants will be poor but not all of them; citizenship will become a valuable sought-after commodity and the middle-class and even wealthy people will be migrating to the citystates where all the business and industry and good paying jobs and high standards of living and law and order are, so even the demographics of the wealthy bourgeosie will be altered significantly, with white people ceasing to be the majority ruling class they once were. I imagine the dynamics might become sort of similar to a country like China, where the population is so vast and diverse and there has so much migration over the years that essentially everyone is an immigrant in their own country and it's not really so much about where you are from, it's simply just about class and how much money you make and whether you are in the high-roller's club or not, whether you are a global citizen with a portfolio of passports for all the major citystates, or you're a prole living outside the walls.
>>2543910
revenge from the cradle
>>2543910
don't you know immigration undercuts the wages of the brave american workers you monster?? surely it's because mexicans that the US working class is disorganized and that this country is not socialist…
>>2543997There's a porky think tank that outright recommends mass migration on the basis that it makes class solidarity less likely. Forget which one it is.
>>2543997>immigration undercuts the wages of the brave american workersbased and leveling the value of labor power pilled
>>2543440What prejudice against white people? From who? Name some examples of how anti white prejudice has negatively impacted your, or anyone's life for that matter
>>2543460>Believes in anti white racismLmao retard
>>2544004lowering wages is based!
Remind the BASE: white race doesn’t exist, it’s just a political term. There is only Europeoid race
>>2544014lower wages in the norf = higher wages in the souf
>>2544018>semanticsGood luck with that. Maybe you could tell people Palestinians are the real semites too. I'm sure that will be a game changer.
>>2544009It's racism. It exists, and is pushed by virtue signallers. Trying to say you can't be racist to white people, is the genuinely retarded take, and shows the person saying it is retarded.
I've been called a white bastard. Is that not racism?
We know that there has been a push to put POC as top priority for things. It's not retarded to acknowledge that, it's retarded to ignore it.
Is it pushed by the left or right? I don't know, but I know it's pushed by businesses, as they want to appease people so that they use that business.
We all have the same enemy, and this fighting between groups benefits the people in charge.
>>2544099
uygha only has one meme lmao.
>>2544171It’s one meme too many, memes are mental alcohol
>>2543441
You're too busy sucking israeli dicks to do anything.
>>2544171Is this count as meme?
>>2544321text images are the most basic form of memes.
>>2544326>20:02:39>20:04:45Most obsessed faggot award
>>2544336cry about it, it takes a second to see a new message on the headline, read and respond to it.
>Normies get radicalized en masse by immigration fearmongering
>Normies vote hard-right to reverse it
>Far-right parties dont reverse it as they're backed by the same porkies that created those conditions in the first place
>Normies become disillusioned with the economic and political system that incentivizes mass-immigration
Quit trying to waft away the fire OP
Leave our continent while you can, brownoids, our patience have limits, and soon enough the camps will reopen and we will turn your kind infesting our lands into bio fuel
>>2543271>Whining about “anti-white” racism in the thread where vile red-browns admit their feverish desire to help the bourgeoisie genocide brown proletarians in “their” (the capitalists’) countryYea I hope you get pancreatic cancer mate 🙃
>>2543276Creating counterpoints would imply nativists aren’t making ad-hoc rationalizations to genocide the people the bourgeoisie told them is responsible for their problems in life; but that is in fact the case
Leftoids need to stop being vile cowards and return to murdering fascists and nationalists, it really is that simple. You won’t beat Hitler at the debate podium, fag.
>>2545087>why would the jews do this?!its also fascinating how white supremacists literally blame jews for the transatlantic slave trade - as if the long-term plan was to fill the country with ethnic minorities; black slaves, who also arrived in 1641, over a century before 1776.
>>2545090The vast majority of slave imports in to the US was in the 1800s, it was a trickle before then.
>>2545095and most "whites" came in the 20th century
one type of people is enfranchised as "american"
while the more original are disenfranchised
but this is just colonisation:
<what are these arabs doing in isreal?! >>2545097What's that got to do with Jewish prominence in the slave trade
>>2545090Most anti-semitism is projection by angloids
>>2545103>Blame slavery on the Jew!- t. man who believes the slave trade never should have ended and all non-whites must be exterminated
>>2545106WTF is t. ?
Newfag >>2545128
They were actually sephardic jews.
>>2545144
>Blame the Jew!
t. Man that supports thing he blames on jews
>>2545128>>2545103what are the sources youre interpreting?
the origin of the myth that jews controlled the slave trade reportedly comes from the nation of islam's text "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" (1990), with some infographics also using elizabeth donnan's work "Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America" (1935) to trace the genaeology of slave ship owners (reportedly, 78% of which were owned by jews, but this can nowhere be confirmed). the ships owned by jews included in reports are Abigail (Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy, and Jacob Franks), Crown (Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson), and Nassau (Moses Levy). this doesnt appear to have any novel monopoly over trade however. of reports i can confirm, there is this:
>Dutch Orthodox Rabbi Lody van de Kamp wrote a book about Dutch Jewish complicity in the transatlantic slave trade. He talks about the Jodensavanne (“Jewish Savannah”), an agricultural community with 40 Jewish-owned plantations with at least 5,000 enslaved people in a part of former Dutch Guyana. Seymour Drescher, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh states that Dutch Jews may have accounted for the resale of at least 15,000 enslaved people on the Caribbean island of Curacao. According to Drescher, there was a time when Jewish people controlled about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies.https://jewishmuseum.org.uk/2019/12/03/memento-mori-and-the-dutch-and-jewish-involvement-in-transatlantic-slavery/and this:
<Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/>>2545144
Wdym, I'm Ashkenazi
its never wise to fall for the bait:
>During the years encompassed by 1753, when Jacob Rodrigues Rivera first entered the slave trade to Africa, and 1774, when Aaron Lopez conducted his last venture, voyages from Rhode Island to Africa totaled 347. The twenty-seven launched by Newport’s Jewish merchants during the twenty years in which they participated in the African slave trade therefore comprised 7.7 percent of the colony’s efforts in that period. The number of slaves known to have been transported from the coast of Africa by Rhode Island slave vessels between 1753 and 1774 was 16,043, in 145 of the 347 voyages conducted during those years.31Of the 145 vessels, 135, or 93.1 percent, were owned by non-Jews; they carried 14,643 slaves, or 91.2 percent of the entire 16,043 […] To Aaron Lopez, the merchant in the Jewish community who was the most frequently involved, the African slave trade represented a small part of his commercial activity […] In all, Lopez’s twenty-one slaving ventures to Africa over the course of his commercial career represented approximately 10 percent of his trading expeditions
<eli faber - jews, slaves and the slave trade (pp.137-8)
>>2545164Why are jews so powerful?
>>2545144
> cattle
Goy is not translated as cattle btw
> What do we do about immigration?
We kill all the billionaires. Literally the same solution for any problem under capitalism. The only reason mass immigration exists is because the west keeps the global south in a state of perpetual poverty, and this is done at the behest of said billionaires.
>>2545191where did you find this picture of me
>>2545164Why do you support the things you blame on jews tho?
>>2545621Why do you think anti-immigration people want black slaves?
>>2546019Ask your ancestor’s corpse
>>2546128You're an idiot, stop worshipping blacks
Who cares what the proles and lumpens of Westoid world think, they're all obese autistic gay incels and 55 years old on average. Let them die or kill them, then replace them with more immigrants.
Westoids should take in half of the world's population for the next few centuries for what they did.
More immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees for the West. Until pigskins befome <5% of population.
>>2542698makes sense, only a far-rightist would be dumb enough think he was talking to the neoliberal leaders of the EU on this communist chan board
>>2546438Why do you blame Jews for things you agree with and support?
>>2530926What if I am a crude Marxist and only stand to advance the historical forces? Open borders are the most effective productive model, if capitalism defines a interface of itself with mankind through a "united human coalition" exploiting it's maximum potential, then the revolution will position itself in the "uniquely distinct class".
Thus, the vanguard will be of response, and th triumph will be on totality
>>2538729Nationalism from socialism can work if it is an emergent quality of the dominant group
Even within socialism the ultimately most effective survival strategy for individuals groups is transgression, and imposition.
Thus the more dominant group will naturally assert itself within communism.
The majority should belong to the capitalist class, for when the revolution destroys them as a class they are thus destroyed biologically by the one true race.
It is the dialectical falseability of the greater classes.
It is the most broad revolution.
>>2546856POV: I do not understand how capitalism functions as a global system
>>2545087Why is it that some left wing people advocate for reverse colonialism, even despite being white? If your goal is to end subjugation then isn’t this an antithetical stance? An eye for an eye only results in people seeking more “vengeance”. If this is the case, then why is colonialism bad in the first place?
>>2530843The goal is not to have any economic immigrants because 3rd world has jobs and prosperity like rest of the world.
>>2553119Reverse colonialism would be JDPON and only some crazed maoists argue seriously for that, developped countries importing foreign proles is just that and doesn't bring back capital in any substantial way to the exporters, it's not colonization although it leads to interculturation which makes the bigots heckin mad
>>2530845>>2530843immigration is an unsolvable problem for the left. If you crack down you're seen as nativist and racist, if you open up its seen as shitting on the supply of jobs and housing for proles and makes them ally with the right.
>>2553125>The goal is not to have any economic immigrants because 3rd world has jobs and prosperity like rest of the world.there will always be PMCs who want to migrate to make $$$ on wall street
>>2553414Well surely, from a eugenicists point of view whites will be culled of low hanging fruits and the superior will survive. Only the most fit specimens will adapt to the new environment, you can even argue under threat they will adapt faster
Funny how the most racist right wing states in the euroach peninsula are all in eastern europe
See the likes of Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria…
>to fight fascism, we must adopt fascist policies
This thread.
All of you losers will be drowned in the sea,
>>2553462>If you crack down you're seen as nativist and racistby a tiny group of hardcore real leftists will never make you win an election
with the majority you'd just win forever with left wing policies if you pretended to be anti immigration and "put the country/people" first or whatever
>>2530843We let it happen. Execute all crackkkers and have the migrants take over as reparations for colonialism
>>2553688>pretended to be anti immigration so just lie and trick the people?
>>2553693Yes. Proletarians want idpol so you have to give them it.
>>2553694Why can’t the idpol be lynching left wing opportunists that say what you’re saying tho?
We can call you commie infiltrators trying to ruin le nation or whatever the fuck and they get to have their reactionary blood sacrifice without giving up anyone worth a damn, like an immigrant prole
>>2553688>with the majority you'd just win forever with left wing policies if you pretended to be anti immigration and "put the country/people" first or whateverIf this was the case then we surely would've seen a left-wing politician do this successfully? Actually in my country, a left-wing politician succeeded by doing the opposite of that, and he's also an immigrant.
But maybe the context here is different. There's nothing about Muslim immigrants to the U.S. that suggests they won't assimilate into the society like Italian Catholics did. Also, historically, radical politics such as socialism has been more attractive in this country to people from immigrant backgrounds than the natives. Socialism was famously associated with Germans and Jews, and anarchism with Italians. It's hard to say whether there has been much of a "native" radical tradition in this country at all.
>>2554509Why would such a campaign be successful? There are no plausible anti-immigration movements or figures on the left, and the left is so lopsidedly pro-immigration that any left-wing figure against immigraton is obviously lying.
>>2543097good post. got brought here by your footnote in your other post in /political economy/ 5
>>2543097>i hope the ethos of xenia will win out and we may all be hospitable to one another, but things are forced to be different in a competitive world.in the pierce brosnan movie goldeneye we see a female soviet villain xenia onatop. she is called onatop because she likes to be onatop
>>2554509Because the public knows that everyone is bullshiting about being anti-immigration. The public has been voting in politicians who claim to be against immigration but when those come into power, they either do nothing or even increase it. It's to create a learned helplessness in the population. So an epic anti-immigration leftist is not going to make waves in this situation.
>>2530954>The focus should be on the quality of immigration with people coming to work study and build a life not just those chasing welfare gibs. I'm just a burger, so I can't really say about Europe, but no immigrants are saving up 10s of thousands of dollars to immigrate to the West, DROWNING in the Mediterranean SO THEY CAN GET CRUMBS FROM WELFARE. They're trying to get motherfucking rich. That's the most obviously bullshit right-wing argument I can think of.
I hear people complain about the high taxes and welfare state in Europe long before and outside of the current wave of immigration. If such a problem exists, that has more to do with the nature of your welfare state and not "the quality of immigration."
Jesus Christ, I google migrants Medditerranean, just to grab a picture. And apparently 42 just drowned today.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/42-migrants-presumed-dead-after-boat-capsizes-off-127446881But they're doing all that just for the SWEET SWEET GIBS!
>>2558136In many cases the families, villages, tribes etc in Africa and ME pitch to make a fund in order to send one person so they can earn, comparatively to their country and not much by european standards, a huge amount of money that they then send back. This is part of why you see young dudes in disproportion, and ironically they will often get less welfare than regular wage workers because they work all of the bullshit jobs of the gig economy that don't have the same protections if any.
>>2558186>In many cases the families, villages, tribes etc in Africa and ME pitch to make a fund in order to send one person so they can earn, comparatively to their country and not much by european standards, a huge amount of money that they then send backYeah exactly. They need to at the very least pay back all those people who chipped in to fund their voyage. But the rightoids want you to believe that these people did all that so they can come sit on their ass collecting welfare checks. No, they're trying to work as much ass possible with the opportunity to make as much money as they can.
>>2530926Why can’t a party of Muslims succeed?
>>2558136There is nothing wrong with sinking boat loads of
men heading towards your country, it doesn't matter if its guys from Tunisia, or the US Navy.
(Reactionary) >>2564398Because Muslims in Europe are still a tiny minority.
>>2530843I'm imagining a compromise position is something like putting all immigrants on a 5 year work visa with ZERO pathway to citizenship no matter what and have ALL immigrants be on this visa but with high worker protections (fruit pickers must be given access to camp sites where they can sleep in a tent for free instead of the current income rape situation where they're forced by the farmer to rent from someone the farmer knows to have the pickers income drained back into the farmers pockets for example)
Basically once you get the visa you get 5 years in the west to work and do whatever you please, after that you go back, while you're here you can work whatever job you please and quit your job whenever you want or just lay about and waste your time and bring shame to your family back home
You get to minimize the problem of the working class euros watching increasingly more areas go from 99% white to 20% white in the span of 20 years and becoming anti-immigrant radicals in response while still allowing porky his cheap labor force + enriching the immigrants home countrys once they go back with the money they've earned + assures the working class that the immigrants will be going back once they're time is up and wont become permanent citizens and influencing elections
It also solves the aging immigrant question too
assuming the whole global north set up a program like this you could have like 30 million migrants rotating in and out of the west each year without much issue and massively improve the living conditions in the global south at the same time
>>2531933>The proof is in the pudding. Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany has tried to do this sorta-left politics but with social conservatism and migration restrictions, but she hasn't performed well. And if she went to an election on the promise of loosening migration restrictions she'd have done even worse, the whole overton window has shifted massively towards anti-immigration to the point anything else is becoming electoral suicide
>I'm imagining a compromise position is something like putting all immigrants on a 5 year work visa with ZERO pathway to citizenship no matter what and have ALL immigrants be on this visa but with high worker protections (fruit pickers must be given access to camp sites where they can sleep in a tent for free instead of the current income rape situation where they're forced by the farmer to rent from someone the farmer knows to have the pickers income drained back into the farmers pockets for example)>>2564904the crueltry towards these people is part of the point from the electorate.
Honestly, I don't support mass immigration, seems a recipe to disaster and social chaos, we should always support other countries development so that we can avoid mass immigration, taking the best and the brightest and most hard working folks from other countries so they can futher capitalism is such a bad idea
>>2564915>taking the best and the brightest and most hard working folks from other countries so they can futher capitalism is such a bad ideaThese immigrants do less crime than locals and help the economy. Multiculturalism should be introduced slowly so rightoids dont chimp out.
>>2564949You're taking a essential human capital that would help their home country to develop, instead they to another country to work for some company, mass immigration is a mistake
>>2564952>human capital that would help their home country to develop, Skilled workers rarely disappear from their home country. Many keep going back and forth, stay involved with universities or workplaces at home, or eventually return with far more skills, connections, and capital than they would gain by staying.
Also the cash sent back to home countries is significant and usually more than foreign aid combined.
>mass immigration is a mistakeAgreed. Immigration should be done carefully with vetting for entry and then citizenship.
sexpatriotism
> I am for the working class but if they from another nation I think we should murder them so I can keep my treats
> I am against strike breakers but if they're from another nation then i don't see the problem, i think we should let them do the jobs the strikers don't want to do for the wages being offered.
>>2565880Any business that can't find workers for the wages they're offering (cause they're shit) is undergoing a defacto strike, the business should either increase wages to compete for workers, or invest in new machinery so they can produce more with less men.
To import an immigrant to do these shitty jobs workers allegedly don't want to do (as is the usual justification for mass migration), is to break this defacto strike
>>2543097>in engels' "condition of the working class" (1845) he describes the character of the irish immigrant competing against the english and the antagonism which naturally spawns. marx continues on this later on in a letter to sigfrid meyer (9 april, 1870), saying that while there can be reconciliation, it is ultimately harmful and counter-revolutionary to house immigrants in england at the expense of the national liberation of the irish, as against their english colonisers. it is in the mutual interest of the workers to have the irish back in ireland by conquering the english aristocracy, and that without this, as he writes to engels, "the english working class will never accomplish anything" (11 december, 1869). Neither Marx nor Engels argued this, either you're remaking on such things out of ignorance, or out of manipulative malice. Marx's writing on the Irish in the piece you cite has nothing to do with arguing that it is of primary importance to have the Irish back in Ireland to ensure national liberation, rather that the English proletariat are impotent and bought off, and will continue to be such until the question of Irish liberation is brought to the forefront and Ireland freed form England. How you turned this into an argument for the rejection of Irish immigrants and a program to no longer house them I cannot understand. This is especially obvious in their later works as well, where Marx and Engels sympathize more greatly with the acts of Irish migrants in England, who act with at times more revolutionary vigor then their reformist English counterparts. Late Marx and Engels continually celebrate collaboration between English and Irish workers, and state clearly how they must unite to see any success, as well as take up the cause of Irish national liberation.
>>2565886>Any business that can't find workers for the wages they're offering (cause they're shit) is undergoing a defacto strikeThat's not what a strike is anon
>>2565895its a defacto unorganized strike
>workers think their job is shit and organize a strike with their union where they refuse to work until conditions improve, workers attempt to physically prevent porky from bringing any scabs across the picket line to break the strikeBASED BASED BASED
>workers think a jobs wages are shit and refuse to even apply for the job to begin with, effectively creating an unorganized strike action where no one will work until conditions improve, workers attempt to implement border controls so porky cant just import a strike breaker across the border to break the defacto strikeUhh cringe??? porky needs to send in the strike breakers ASAP
>>2565886>Any business that can't find workers for the wages they're offering (cause they're shit) is undergoing a defacto strike, the business should either increase wages to compete for workers, or invest in new machinery so they can produce more with less men.Machinery is what's largely invested in, but you're forgetting the role of the reserve army of labour, which will take up jobs as unemployment drives up, particularly when no other means exists. Usually at best you only see a lack of employment in one industry, while another drives up.
>To import an immigrant to do these shitty jobs workers allegedly don't want to do (as is the usual justification for mass migration), is to break this defacto strikeThe only way immigrant labour can "break" the state of things is if there are laws in place that allow work for below a given wage and if the workers coming in are non-unionized. To argue instead for collaboration with the bourgeoisie to "fight" immigration, an action which will only bind the fate of the proletariat to them indefinately, as opposed to unification with migrants in order to deny them form the bourgeoisie, shows exactly where your loyalties actually lie. By refusing to work with in the context of what capitalism is, and instead trying to rework capitalism into a position where you hope to negotiate the bougeoisie into taking an action which is nonsensical to it, you make any kind of future movement impotent.
>But mandatory unionization is impossible! But trying to build revolution while giving the bourgeoisie a double blackmail to use against you is? Somehow fighting migrants and the bourgeoisie (as opposed to using said migrants to your own benefit against the bourgeoisie) is a possible long term winning battle for you?
>>2565901>instead for collaboration with the bourgeoisie to "fight" immigrationmore like immigration restrictions should be forced upon the bourgeoisie whether they like it or not
>dude just unionize the strikebreakers/immigrants broyeah ok lol
>>2565898>workers attempt to physically prevent porky from bringing any scabs across the picket line to break the strikeThe issue is that you can apply this to marginalized groups native to the country as well, say in the case of the US and black people. The solution isn't just a blanket block, that will inevitably fail. The solution is to build solidarity with black workers so as to add them to the growing revolutionary mass, denying them from being put in a position where they will take the job due to economic pressure from the bourgeoisie. The failure of many
early automotive strikes due to distrust and outright abuse by white workers towards black workers in indicative of how simply trying to remove "potential scabs" isn't a successful strategy.
>effectively creating an unorganized strike action where no one will work until conditions improve, workers attempt to implement border controls so porky cant just import a strike breaker across the border to break the defacto strikeThat's not what happening, but regardless, this also doesn't work as it's not workers implementing border controls, it's bourgeoisie at the levers offering the same wages in exchange for not having migrants come over. By arguing for border control as opposed to fighting for worker organization and unionization, we place the worker in the hands of the bourgeoisie. We are re-shuffled into a fight against the possible migrant, as opposed to playing with the reality of what we are dealt using what cards we have to fight against the bourgeoise. We end up in a race to fulfill the mythology of a "closed border" (as if "open borders" were even a thing to begin with) and become a slave to an unwinnable fight that concludes in a loss to workers everywhere. We become our own "strike breakers" and the only way to prevent that is to take the only path forward, and unite with migrant, demand the same rights for him, and so refute his, and our, immiseration.
>>2565908>more like immigration restrictions should be forced upon the bourgeoisie whether they like it or notBy what means? Who controls the border? And if you have the means to do make the bourgeoisie do this, why are you not demanding mandatory unionization instead? Workers rights instead? Revolution instead? It's because you do not actually care for revolution, you care that you aren't being cut into the imperialist pie.
>dude just unionize the strikebreakers/immigrants bro>yeah ok lolSo says every sucessful communist revolution and revolutionary the world over, so yeah. You'll go over high hill and batter anyone you have to in order to convince the bourgeoisie to reverse the course of capitalism, but at the prospect of committing even half that degree of effort toward unionizing workers, you shirk. All the energy and steps to get there, and you could have energized the people toward revolt. Instead? Opportunism, spinelessness, a liberal program of "reform". What do believe in? What are you convictions? Is it communism? Or is it recovering the temporary comfort you feel denied in a failing system, so your grandchildren can feast on your failures like generations two past did to you?
>>2565898>its a defacto unorganized strikeNo its not because a strike is something a group of employed people do in an organized fashion to receive concessions from their employer. Im not "defacto on strike" at the 900 000 000 other jobs that I didn't apply for when im working or when im unemployed.
>>2565893>Neither Marx nor Engels argued thisargued what? i made a few points. first, engels claims that the irish are competitors to the english:
<With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htmso this point is vindicated.
next, i say that its in the capitalists' interest to have an inflated labour market in england rather than a free ireland. lets read:
<the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, 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.htmwhats next? its in the mutual interest of the irish and english workers to have the irish repossess the nation from colonisers:
>The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htm<After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland […] you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England […] Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength […]But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question […] It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm<In a case like that of the Irish, true Internationalism must necessarily be based upon a distinctly national organisationhttps://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/irish-section.htmso then, everything i said is right, no?
>nothing to do with arguing that it is of primary importance to have the Irish back in Ireland to ensure national liberationso as we read, landlords clear out the irish and force them into england - the land question and independence then concerns re-settling the irish in ireland to be free. we may read the parliamentary resolution to the irish land question here (1877):
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1877-04-27/debates/5f544c77-710c-4986-806d-031e4e872782/TheIrishLandQuestionit directly concerns rents imposed upon the irish with the threat of eviction. so as marx says, the irish are kicked out of ireland and are forced into england. independence should then reverse this, no?
>Late Marx and Engels continually celebrate collaboration between English and Irish workers, and state clearly how they must unite to see any success, as well as take up the cause of Irish national liberation.youre literally just describing what ive already said… youre confused.
>>2565910>That's not what happening, but regardlessit is whats happening, but regardless
>it's bourgeoisie at the levers offering the same wages in exchange for not having migrants come over.The Bourgeoisie simply do not have the power or organisation to say "ok we won't bring in migrants anymore but wages are now being locked forever, and you may never ever switch to a higher paying job from another porky that crossed the picket line" this is nonsensical
> By arguing for border control as opposed to fighting for worker organization and unionization, we place the worker in the hands of the bourgeoisie. We are re-shuffled into a fight against the possible migrant, as opposed to playing with the reality of what we are dealt using what cards we have to fight against the bourgeoise. We end up in a race to fulfill the mythology of a "closed border" (as if "open borders" were even a thing to begin with) and become a slave to an unwinnable fight that concludes in a loss to workers everywhere. We become our own "strike breakers" and the only way to prevent that is to take the only path forward, and unite with migrant, demand the same rights for him, and so refute his, and our, immiseration.fine, we shall continue to bang our heads against the same wall for another 50 years and watch leftism become completely repugnant to the western working class and allow porky to import as many immigrants as he pleases without any attempt to stop it whatsoever. I'm sure this won't result in the creation of a billion reactionaries
>dude just organize the strike breakers and we can have a revolutionok go do that then if its so easy
I'm the only leftist that thinks mass immigration is bad?
>>2565930>it is whats happening, but regardlessA portion not working due to not even being hired, or not working in a given industry and moving jobs, is not the same as people collectively striking.
>The Bourgeoisie simply do not have the power or organisation to say "ok we won't bring in migrants anymore but wages are now being locked forever, and you may never ever switch to a higher paying job from another porky that crossed the picket line" this is nonsensicalIt's absurd at this point to argue the bougeoisie lack power or organization to do so, but the point that was being made was that by placing the focus on obtaining "closed borders", liberal-conservative parties are then able to leverage their power against labour in "exchange" for the "protection" of domestic labour. This doesn't stop illegal migration mind you, as such laws really only allow the bourgeoisie to supress and extract from the migrant to an even greater degree (as they cannot even petition the state for recourse), but it does put the proletariat in the bind of having his continued status being dependent on his prostration to the bourgeoisie. Any demand for higher wages will be met by shaking heads with stories of companies willing to leave, or that we'll just have to take in migrants to make up the difference to compete on the global market. The platform becomes that of pushing out the migrant, as opposed to lifting up the proletarian whole.
>fine, we shall continue to bang our heads against the same wall for another 50 years and watch leftism become completely repugnant to the western working class and allow porky to import as many immigrants as he pleases without any attempt to stop it whatsoever. I'm sure this won't result in the creation of a billion reactionariesThe "head banging" you're clamoring against is the exact impotent program you're cheering for. It's been a process of communist or "socialist" parties enaging in the pettiest of concessions until they are indistinguishable from the most bourgeoisie parties. Allow porky? Porky already does, we have no say in that. What we do have a say in is worker mobilization. I'm advocating for taking the power away from the capitalist, for denying them the ways they put us against one another, to make immigration itself totally inert. And leftism is already repugnant to many people at its base economic framework, but we can see that changing, even with immigration. I'm not an opportunist, I don't flip my beliefs because I'm worried that reactionaries will be made otherwise. That's a guaranteed way to get stomped out of existence. And if you could mobilize to stop immigration, you could have just stopped the bourgeoisie altogether instead, but given that you don't, you care more about the status afforded to you as part of the "western working class" then actual worker emancipation.
>ok go do that then if its so easyIt's not going to be easy, that's the point. But it's a lot easier and more fruitful then wasting time splitting the working class and simultaneously trying to fight both the bourgeoisie and migrant workers AND then try to push for revolution only when you've gotten your treats while having fostered a working class more for the maintenance of fundamentally bourgeoisie parties then any kind of global revolution. A communist project is one of struggle for potential success. Yours is a project of liberal panhandling for the guarantee of failure.
>>2565917My issue is with the conclusions you're drawing, the initial part of early engels arguing that the Irish and English would be/were in contention was not my main concern. There's issues I have with what you quoted and what you left out, but the primary issue is the final conclusion, and we'd be going back and forth posting excerpts form the "Ireland and the Irish Question" anyway.
>so as we read, landlords clear out the irish and force them into england - the land question and independence then concerns re-settling the irish in ireland to be free. we may read the parliamentary resolution to the irish land question here (1877): This is what doesn't follow. The Irish being moved to England isn't exactly the plan, it's more a consequence of English conquest and rent-seeking/profiteering (
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech-notes.htm), with the added result of displacing the Irish. Marx and Engels however did not support some grand plan of them moving out Irish migrants from England to Ireland, at most showing sympathy for the Fenian's and advocating solidarity so as to unite the cause of the Irish and English workingman.
>it directly concerns rents imposed upon the irish with the threat of eviction. so as marx says, the irish are kicked out of ireland and are forced into england. independence should then reverse this, no? I don't see how. The Irish will no longer face eviction, but what doesn't follow is every Irishman up and leaving. Marx and Engels are not up for just a national project and then leaving all said and done, they saw it as a way to have revolution in both spheres.
>it is ultimately harmful and counter-revolutionary to house immigrants in england at the expense of the national liberation of the irish, as against their english colonisers. it is in the mutual interest of the workers to have the irish back in ireland by conquering the english aristocracy,It's this that they don't state. I can find nowhere, in what you posted, in which Marx or Engels state that it is counter-revolutioary to house immigrants, only that by not supporting the liberation of Ireland and uniting with said migrants, English workers are doing themselves a disservice. And it's many separate revolutions as one, it's not sending the Irish back to Ireland to then conquer the English aristocracy, it's the Irish and English working class working in England working to get England off the back of Ireland, the Irish and Germans in America uniting off this, and the Irish movments in Ireland working to fight off English rule. I ask you to show me sources for this main arguement.
<England as the metropolis of capital, as the power, which until now, has ruled the world market, is for the time being, the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and in addition the only country, where the material conditions of the revolution, have developed to a certain ripeness. To accelerate the social revolution in England is therefore the most important task of the international workers’ association. The only means of accelerating it, is to make Ireland independent. It is therefore the task of all internationalists, every- where, to place in the foreground the conflict between England and Ireland, openly to take the side of Ire- land. It is the special task of the General Council in London, to awaken the consciousness of the English working class to the fact that the national emancipation of Ireland is no abstract question of justice or humanitarian feeling, but that it is the first condition of its own social emancipation.” >>2565965>I'm the only leftist that thinks mass immigration is bad?I don't think you're consequential "leftist" of you care for the topic at all. Being "anti" or "pro" immigration is to purely buy into the false liberal dicotomy of it all, instead of stepping beyond it and arguing for the socialization of labour and the unification of the working class. If when given the prospect of organizing workers, you instead argue that we must first fight back the migrant, you're at best an impotent liberal who's end state is the same as every single party that's attempted that, and at worst a petty nationalist who cares more about the slice of the migrant then the slice of the capitalist above him.
>>2566040marx and engels believed in national liberation.
why dont you?
>>2566033more incoherence.
>There's issues I have with what you quoted and what you left outwhat did i leave out?
>This is what doesn't follow. The Irish being moved to England isn't exactly the plan, it's more a consequence of English conquest and rent-seeking/profiteeringso, the landlords force out the irish by high rents, and the bourgeoisie benefit by worker competition… and you are saying that this is an accident..? lets read:
<As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land […] It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration […] the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, 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 […] Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htmits the interest of the capitalist to have this happen, and then have the english worker identify with the ruling class, rather than the irish struggle for a homeland. why do you disagree with marx?
>unite the cause of the Irish and English workingman. in an inter-national struggle. again, who is an independent ireland for? the english settlers?
>Engels are not up for just a national project and then leaving all said and donecan you have an irish nation without irishman?
>It's this that they don't stateits what is implied. if not, tell me why its to the benefit of the english working class to have an independent ireland.
>by not supporting the liberation of Ireland and uniting with said migrants, English workers are doing themselves a disservice.why? marx says directly that any attempt to make the struggle a humanitarian issue must be opposed. so then, what is in the self-interest of english proles?
>>2566047>marx and engels believed in national liberation. why dont you?Where did I state a rejection of national liberation?
>what did i leave out?Their focus on unification and how the animosity is artificially fed by the bourgeoisie.
>so, the landlords force out the irish by high rents, and the bourgeoisie benefit by worker competition… and you are saying that this is an accident..? lets read:Accident isn't a word I used, it's just merely a consequence that the bourgeoisie then twist to their benefit. The aristocracy aren't rent-seeking and oppressing the population for the purpose of making them leave for England, they're doing so for their own profiteering which as a consequence results in them leaving for England. Marx discusses how emigration/eviction is a consequence of both rent seeking and the later "agricultural revolution" in Capital I (
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S5f) and Capital III:
<We are not speaking now of conditions in which ground-rent, the manner of expressing landed property in the capitalist mode of production, formally exists without the existence of the capitalist mode of production itself, i.e., without the tenant himself being an industrial capitalist, nor the type of his management being a capitalist one. Such is the case, e.g., in Ireland. The tenant there is generally a small farmer. What he pays to the landlord in the form of rent frequently absorbs not merely a part of his profit, that is, his own surplus labour (to which he is entitled as possessor of his own instruments of labour), but also a part of his normal wage, which he would otherwise receive for the same amount of labour. Besides, the landlord, who does nothing at all for the improvement of the land, also expropriates his small capital, which the tenant for the most part incorporates in the land through his own labour. This is precisely what a usurer would do under similar circumstances, with just the difference that the usurer would at least risk his own capital in the operation. This continual plunder is the core of the dispute over the Irish Tenancy Rights Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to compel the landlord when ordering his tenant off the land to indemnify the latter for his improvements on the land, or for his capital incorporated in the land. Palmerston used to wave this demand aside with the cynical answer. >its the interest of the capitalist to have this happen, and then have the english worker identify with the ruling class, rather than the irish struggle for a homeland. why do you disagree with marx?I don't disagree that the capitalist benefits, my point was that the rent-seekers in Ireland aren't doing it for the express purpose of getting the Irish to go to England to divide the world class. They are doing it make money, after which Irish emigrate to escape the conditions being made and then are used in England.
>in an inter-national struggle. again, who is an independent ireland for? the english settlers?To kickstart a socialist revolution in England, and by extension Ireland as well, and thus eventually all of Europe. The focus on Marx isn't "Ireland for the Irish", rather it's that Ireland needs to be liberated economically from England to open the conditions necessary for the workers in England (both Irish and English) to carry out proletarian revolution against the English aristocracy and by extension it's bourgeoisie.
>can you have an irish nation without irishman?Nation isn't the same as a nation state, but nothing stated implied that Ireland was fully depopulated. That's absurd, there were still millions of Irish in Ireland. There were still millions not in Ireland, especially in the United States at the time.
>its what is implied. if not, tell me why its to the benefit of the english working class to have an independent ireland.To weaken the English aristocracy which hold power over it, which also hold power in England? He literally says it on the work you linked.
Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. <The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.
<If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English.>why? marx says directly that any attempt to make the struggle a humanitarian issue must be opposed. so then, what is in the self-interest of english proles?Proletarian revolution, he states it in what you posted. Later on in his life, Engels also remarks on how the English proletariet is becoming more and more "bourgeoisie", and that independence of its colonies may be the only path forward to ensure any kind of workers movement in England (
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htm).
>>2566090>Their focus on unificationunification of what? the struggle is expressly international (i.e. england and ireland working together as separate peoples for a common end). you arent conceiving of this correctly.
>Accident isn't a word I used, it's just merely a consequence that the bourgeoisie then twist to their benefitits either an accident or not. if its not accidental, then its intentional, so this must be your position.
>The aristocracy aren't rent-seeking and oppressing the population for the purpose of making them leave for England, they're doing so for their own profiteering which as a consequence results in them leaving for Englandits a win-win for the ruling class, whether the irish are in ireland or england.
>To kickstart a socialist revolution in England, and by extension Ireland as well, and thus eventually all of Europewhy is irish independence more "socialist" than not? why does marx specifically care about irish nationalism?
>The focus on Marx isn't "Ireland for the Irish", rather it's that Ireland needs to be liberated economically from England to open the conditions necessary for the workers in Englandwhat conditions? youre not making sense. how does irish independence economically benefit english workers?
>To weaken the English aristocracy which hold power over it, which also hold power in England?how does weakening the aristocracy in ireland materially benefit the english working class? would it be a reversal of what is currently harming the workers?
>Proletarian revolutionhow does irish nationalism fuel socialism?
>the English proletariet is becoming more and more "bourgeoisie", and that independence of its colonies may be the only path forward to ensure any kind of workers movement in England yes, as is noted in the existing sources, where it is specifically domestic competition which breeds this attitude; thus, national liberation could undo this by a repossession of land by its peoples.
>>2566120>unification of what? the struggle is expressly international (i.e. england and ireland working together as separate peoples for a common end). you arent conceiving of this correctly.Of the workers in the countries they are in. Of the German and Irish in America, of the Irish and English in England, etc.. It's not as seperate people's, the Irish and Germans aren't supposed to shrug and say that only the Anglos in the country can do a thing. It's as a united working class.
>its either an accident or not. if its not accidental, then its intentional, so this must be your position.This is a false dicotomy. I can cut down a tree and know that it might crash on a house on the way down, but still do it with primary purpose of getting the tree out of the way or collecting it's wood. Me taking advantage of the fact that it crashed on the house in some way doesn't make it purely "accidental".
>its a win-win for the ruling class, whether the irish are in ireland or england.Yes.
>why is irish independence more "socialist" than not? why does marx specifically care about irish nationalism?Because of its relation to England. Not so much the nationalism, as nationalist undercurrents to Fenian republicanism typically influenced them towards making bad tactical decisions that Marx loathed, but it's revolutionary liberation struggle that was critical towards both weakening the English aristocracy and opening up Ireland to a more complete economic agricultural revolution. By doing so, it sets the stage for proletarian revolution in both countries.
>what conditions? youre not making sense. how does irish independence economically benefit english workers?By weakening the power of the English aristocracy, which opens up the path for the workers of England to make gains and engage in proletarian revolution, which is the ultimate economic benefit for them to achieve.
>how does weakening the aristocracy in ireland materially benefit the english working class? would it be a reversal of what is currently harming the workers?Yes, in a way. Capitalism is what is currently harming the workers, and by giving the English workers a path towards its dissolution by weakening the stangehold of those that defend the system as is, they can finally overcome it and the bourgeoisie at large.
>yes, as is noted in the existing sources, where it is specifically domestic competition which breeds this attitude; thus, national liberation could undo this by a repossession of land by its peoples.Huh? Not entirely, I provided Engels discussion on this. It's England's control over it's colonies that primarily allows it to effectively "buy off" it's people and divert support towards fundamentally bourgeoisie parties. I never argued against national liberation, but that doesn't involve shipping Irish workers from England to Ireland (nor is it about how "counter-revolutionary" it is to house them), and in a modern context is about the fight against imperialism.
>>2565965>But it's a lot easier and more fruitful then wasting time splitting the working class and simultaneously trying to fight both the bourgeoisie and migrant workers AND then try to push for revolution only when you've gotten your treats while having fostered a working class more for the maintenance of fundamentally bourgeoisie parties then any kind of global revolution.It’s not easier or more fruitful, porky dumping massive amounts of reactionary’s in the west actively makes a revolution impossible
>splitting the working classThey’re already split, a worker that’s watching his suburb become majority migrant in his lifetime is always going to become anti-immigrant in response, no matter how much some impotent vanguardist trys to convince him not to, trying to reverse the flow of migrants will always be the top of his priorities instead of organising for a revolution, unless this revolution is anti immigrant
>>2566518>It’s not easier or more fruitful, porky dumping massive amounts of reactionary’s in the west actively makes a revolution impossibleYes, it's why the pro-monarch reactionaries that held a large foot hold in Russia were able to stop the revolution dead in its tracks! Wait, that's not right. No, its why the nationalist forces that held a large foot hold in China were able to kill the revolution outright! Wait, that's not right either. No, it's why the Vietnamese nationalists were able to consolidate their sizable numerical military advantage to make communism an impossibility in borders of Vietnam! Wait, shit, that doesn't sound right either…
Idk, maybe the revolutions of the past dealt with way harder conditions then we have and still won you sissy. Want to show me your basis for the US dumping "massive amounts of reactionaries" (as if the most revolutionary period in the US's history didn't coincide with some of the biggest influxes of immigration in its history with people twice as reactionary as we have now) and how even if that was the case, how that makes revolution impossible?
>They’re already split, a worker that’s watching his suburb become majority migrant in his lifetime is always going to become anti-immigrant in response, no matter how much some impotent vanguardist trys to convince him not to, trying to reverse the flow of migrants will always be the top of his priorities instead of organising for a revolution, unless this revolution is anti immigrantJust throw in any minority group in the past for "migrant" while you're at it there.
Playing up to the anxieties of the white american suburbanite is the stupidest argument you could have made in support of your "policy", it's like sucking the dick of old money WASPs during the Great Wave and expecting to milk communism out of it. His focus on "reversing the flow of migration" as opposed to revolution makes him the type of person who is focused on keeping "his", and who could care less for revolution no matter how many migrants you sell out for his sympathy. Seriously, why would he bother supporting a communist revolution that could have an inkling of destabilizing his comfy landed existence, when he could just support a national bourgeoisie party instead that will stomp on other proles for him (migrant or not) without having to sacrifice his sympathies for capitalism?
Even on a purely tactical level, this is stupid. Even with your unfounded assumptions, trying to fight against migrant workers AND workers sympathetic to said migrants AND the bourgeoisie state is a complete failure of a program. On every level you are shooting yourself in the foot, refusing to work with cards dealt to you in order to win over the hypothetical suburbanite in your head. You have no plan other then endless manufactured conflict between the working class, and a hope for the west as one enlarged Israel for its "people" at the expense of the global south, all with the support of a quantum of a quantum of a quantum. You're not a communist, you're a petty bourgeoisie fellating nationalist that's disenfranchised and contrarian enough to try and take "communist" as a title because you're embarrassed to swirl around the dregs of the interent as merely a socdem.
>>2566832>You're not a communist, you're a petty bourgeoisie fellating nationalist that's disenfranchised and contrarian enough to try and take "communist" as a title because you're embarrassed to swirl around the dregs of the interent as merely a socdem.Many such cases on this site, the ideathay everyone will have to adapt to the whims and feelings of western suburbanites is disgusting.
I support immigration because I want the West to become more proletarianised and/or more rabidly reactionary (and therefore less capable of intelligent competent imperialism).
Westoids are getting too reactionary and rightoid, let's replace them with Fourth Worlders who are far more revolutionary.
Also Westoids should all get blacked raw. Unironically.
>>2566160>Of the workers in the countries they are in.how does this relate to irish nationalism? marx wanted to build an independent irish nation to collaborate with other nations.
>It's not as seperate people'syes it is. internationalism is about different nations working together.
>It's as a united working classis the working class international, or local?
>Because of its relation to England.how does undermining england benefit the english working class? you have refused to answer this question. marx says that its harmful for english workers to have irish immigration, yet its beneficial to have irish independence. what could this mean?
>Not so much the nationalism, what? marx and engels supported irish nationalism. why are you being like this?
>By weakening the power of the English aristocracy, which opens up the path for the workers of England to make gains what gains?
>Capitalism is what is currently harming the workersdoes mass immigration lower wages? so, what causes mass immigration? capitalism. thus, reversing the cause should reverse the effect. this is basic. normalising mass immigration is capitalist propaganda, since it assumes an imperial framework.
>I never argued against national liberation, but that doesn't involve shipping Irish workers from England to Irelandwhy wouldnt the irish return voluntarily, since they were evicted involuntarily?
>>2566832>youre either hitler or must live in a melting poti just wonder why these are the only options
>>2567227Shut the fuck up adolf
>>2567238but why are there only two options?
help me understand.
Immigration to the West is objectively good, because it weakens imperialism and creates a social disturbance that might lead to either revolution or fascism. Either result is fine, as either result weakens Western imperialism.
Immigration to non Western countries is not good, as non Western countries are already heavily overpopulated and don't need more wage competition. Also non Western countries don't engage in imperialism and social disturbance is not needed in these countries.
>>2567243Ask yourself: Imagine a world where everyone's needs are met (where there is no class even), why would ypu give a single fuck about what background your fellow neighbour has? There is only one acceptable solution, and that is the abolition of class and money. Get outside and meet some people for fuck sake or you'll end up like this retard
>>2567252 >>2567306but why are there only two options?
i still havent got an answer.
Nothing. It's easier to trick someone than to convince someone they've been tricked. The left will never admit they got psyopped with "anti racist" rhetoric into supporting a pro-capitalist immigration policy.
>>2567366you fucking nazi moron, capital WANTS the workers to have LESS mobility, while giving themselves more mobility. NAtions and borders exist purely to keep the proles divided. Please slit your neck at your soonest convenience, fascist scum filth.
>>2567480Neoliberalism victim
>>2567480>capital WANTS the workers to have LESS mobilityThis is just wrong. All kinds of protectionism and borders hurt profit margins especially when it comes to labor costs. Still I think globalization is a progressive force as it develops productive forces in 3rd world countries like China or India.
>NAtions and borders exist purely to keep the proles divided. Yes. National states justify their existence by being our culture versus their culture. Without this the bourgeoisie dictatorship would have very little power over the masses.
>>2567814the contradiction which is identified amongst workers by marx and engels is ethnicity or nationality, yet the international effort did not intend to subsume contradiction in a higher abstraction (e.g. one race, the human race), but rather, that the working class operate best when they work as different peoples toward a mutual interest (i.e. socialism). that is my own interpretation, and the alternative idea of a hodgepodge of a cramped and cosmopolitan working class in one city is a capitalist concept, directly contradictory with the stated aims of independence. now, marx qualifies this by correctly stating that chauvinism is false consciousness, since it forces the native proletariat identify with the bourgeoisie (while it is the bourgeoisie which has caused the problem), yet the alliance of the working class he characterises as an expressly national struggle, not a local struggle.
do you have any comment on this? (as i relate in the original post, fascism literally begins by french anti-immigrant activity in 1893 against italians, leading to the neologism of "national socialism" in 1898, so the effects of this crisis appear unresolved to this day).
>>2568264Urban centers kinda always have been very diverse until nations became a concrete thing with capitalism and frank borders were established. I'd say the idea of population and cultural control to create peace is mostly a modern invention of the bourgeoisie although the ancient city state slavers did some of that too with settler colonialism.
>>2568264>yet the international effort did not intend to subsume contradiction in a higher abstraction (e.g. one race, the human race), but rather, that the working class operate best when they work as different peoples toward a mutual interest (i.e. socialism). I think we agree about the point not being to subsume contradiction in some higher abstraction, but I wouldn't use a presupposition like "the working class operate best when." I think Marx's idea was to have different parties / unions / organizations in different countries, and they cooperate with each other towards a shared end. But there's no high command ordering the respective working-class parties what to do or dictating the form of the movement. What is socialism? More specifically it's the economical emancipation of the working class by the conquest of political power, and then use of that political power to the attainment of social ends.
>that is my own interpretation, and the alternative idea of a hodgepodge of a cramped and cosmopolitan working class in one city is a capitalist concept, directly contradictory with the stated aims of independence. I wouldn't say "concept," but more of a product of capitalism. But actually the proletariat is also a product of capitalism.
>now, marx qualifies this by correctly stating that chauvinism is false consciousness, since it forces the native proletariat identify with the bourgeoisie (while it is the bourgeoisie which has caused the problem), yet the alliance of the working class he characterises as an expressly national struggle, not a local struggle. do you have any comment on this? Well he characterizes a revolution in national terms in Ireland, yes. But I don't think you can impose a single universal template. Remember that Ireland was existing under severe repression. He talked about Poland in similar terms, and supported the national independence struggle of Poland. But the specific historical conditions were different in those places at the time.
Now look at a country like the UAE or Qatar. Who are the workers there? What do you do when 90% of the population isn't even from there and you're trying to impose a particular model for working-class organization that precludes organizing people if they're not from a particular area? A revolution is made by a majority.
Like I don't think it's really an "idea" to have a cosmopolitan working class or not. Or that's the correct frame to look at it. Like we just debate these ideas and that's how history plays out. I don't think so because in reality, you just look at the development of capitalism over the past century. That has become a reality in many places, it's not some abstraction. Capitalism creates a proletariat because it needs a proletariat to work in factories. Would you be, like, "the proletariat is a capitalist concept." Capitalism once rose up in the U.S. with the slave trade, do you send the slaves back to Africa? There were proposals to do this but what ended up happening is a civil war that resulted in the emancipation of the slaves. At any rate I think this anti-immigrant sort of socialism is really a kind of petit-bourgeois socialism.
>>2568264>(as i relate in the original post, fascism literally begins by french anti-immigrant activity in 1893 against italians, leading to the neologism of "national socialism" in 1898, so the effects of this crisis appear unresolved to this day).A portion of the Communist Manifesto:
<While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things. To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic … It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm>>2565965no, mass migration has turned Europe into a Reactionary mass production facility and its only going to get worse the longer it goes on
>>2565965Mass migration isn't entirely bad nor is it entirely good; the same perspective can be applied to the internet, global trade, and chemical fertilizers (all of these were part of Globalization and generally had the same impact by disintegrating local working class and peasant communities).
>>2568493
>My Zoomer German relative said that Germany is a multi-cultural society
People say that everywhere
>>2568498 or rather the college educated middle class says it everywhere, usually more as a means or propaganda than actual belief
>>2568501Really? You think that college educated people say this solely as a means of virtue signalling, and not because going to a western college means you will likely befriend an international student and thus has more positive view of foreign races than someone like you?
>>2568504>Really? You think that college educated people say this solely as a means of virtue signalling, and not because going to a western college means you will likely befriend an international student and thus has more positive view of foreign races than someone like you?They can be genuine but what i mean is when they're defending multiculturalism against their countrys working class, its the same everywhere and i have a feeling its probably the same in Germany
The usual script throughout the whole world is this:
A working class guy starts complaining about migrants (they suppress wages or cause crime or rape people ect.)
The Middle class multiculturalist response is to say "multiculturalism is our strength, X is a nation of immigrants" "X is a multicultural society", then justifying it by saying something like "The NHS in england was built by immigrants" and linking some article massively downplaying the home nations working class who actually built it, to take the achievements of the home countrys working class and place it upon the imported one
Sure they can believe multiculturalism is actually great but the middle class experience with middle class expats and students is vastly different to the working classes experience of potentially having to live next door to reactionary islamists, meaning the middle class that promotes such propaganda is either ignorant, or knowingly engaging in propaganda, but regardless its the same everywhere stuff they say everywhere
>>2568505>I have no college degree, I'm a mutt, and I've been friends with people from a thousand backgrounds as an Amerimutt. Phillipino, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, El Salvadoran, Turkmenistani, etc. etc.Yes and theres middle class people that now have to compete with AI willing to work for 0$ and hour and have gained a newfound sympathy for the working men they used to mock for thinking migrants are suppressing wages by working for $5 and hour and have thus switched sides, but its not really relevant.
>>2568507>What about the Tojos you all worship?i don't know what you're talking about (or care)
>>2568517>its the same everywhere stuff they say everywhereIts the same stuff they say everywhere*
Hello fellow workers, I have this neat new ideology that solves exactly the problem of the VERMIN coming in and working with the (((bourgeois))), its called national socialism! Please try it, before all these stinky lesser beings come in and take your rightful job in the factory!
>>2568561>(((bourgeois)))I chuckled
>>2568561wtf i love scabs now
>>2568407>Well he characterizes a revolution in national terms in Ireland, yes. But I don't think you can impose a single universal template. Remember that Ireland was existing under severe repressionmarx specifically says that solidarity with irish nationalists by the english workers is in their self-interest, divorcing it from humanitarian concerns.
>>2568410>Capitalism once rose up in the U.S. with the slave trade, do you send the slaves back to Africa? There were proposals to do this but what ended up happening is a civil war that resulted in the emancipation of the slaves.as i say, the emancipation of the slaves was the condition toward the segregation of black americans, and the idea of sending them back was even on abraham lincoln's mind (who also felt that slave masters should have been compensated for the loss of their slaves). also, black slaves existed in the colonies since the 17th century, so they are reasonably enfranchised.
>At any rate I think this anti-immigrant sort of socialism is really a kind of petit-bourgeois socialism.all labour movements are inherently national; that is a contradiction between workers which marx identifies.
>>2568397indeed, we may read xenophon (355 B.C.) and see the promotion of foreigners compared with the later mercantilist period, such as in the writings of antoine montchretien (1615) and thomas mun (162?). friedrich list (1841) also writes on how during the time of henry viii (1491-1547) foreign business in britain was persecuted, and we later see the ascendancy of the east india company (1600). montchretien advises the king of france to rely on national production over foreign trade, whilst thomas mun promotes foreign trade by means of a surplus to the nation. only later do we get the "free trade" or liberal period, such as with richard cantillon (1730), who sees the success of national wealth in a "balance of trade", a concept broadened by smith (1776) and ricardo (1817) as "comparative advantage". the "free market" as such is only popularised in the 19th century, following the industrial revolution. as i show however, national capital is backgrounded by national labour coming into the 20th century, such as with proletarian violence against immigrants (1893) and the political neologism of "nationalism socialism" in 1898.
this contemporary crisis of the competition of labour begins in the mid-19th century however, where with the "emancipation proclamation" (1863), we saw the relations between freed slaves and former masters sour, where after the period of conditional co-habitation, segregation was now legislated. i would claim however that this has its transhistorical concept, such that even in athenian cosmopolitanism, the working class were slaves, who did not comprise the demos (citizenry), and so the class character of foreigners also mattered to xenophon. he did not promote the mass migration of free labourers, but of masters and their slaves. this is relevant to the progress of capitalism, since free trade with its burgeoning internationalism was still under colonial condition, by a so-called "imperial preference" (as highlighted by the "old subsidy", 1660). thus, the benefit of free trade was granted by one's inclusion into the empire (in today's imperialism, this is part of "currency hegemony", with failure to comply being various sanctions, or even invasion. we saw with the iraq war and libyan "rebellion" the precondition of sadam hussein's transition into the EUR and gadaffi's plan for a gold-backed reserve, which both led to their deaths, after years of support by the USA). as smith, ricardo and list also highlight, a balance of trade is only beneficial by a counter-balance of fixed capital, and that without this, there are winners and losers. we even see with things like the opium wars, the power to impress particular commodities onto people. this principle is still held up today by gangs who get people addicted to drugs to create permanent demand. so trade is a type of conflict which can lead to war if certain conditions arent met.
the point of saying this is to show how the migration of labour also has its condition, as an agent of capital (i.e. cheap labour), where endless contradiction occurs. trump has openly stated that certain businesses need undocumented immigrants to stay afloat, with a similar sentiment on the liberal left (e.g. "who will clean the toilets?"). the radical left paradoxically accepts this reality, yet seeks to expand its franchise, by seeing cheap labour as a necessary evil to fighting racism, with the idea that protecting the national interest of labour is an inferior struggle to protecting the interest of profit. thus, the condition of this rhetoric in all cases, is a struggle of national labour versus international capital, and so we endlessly return to "national socialism" (a crisis which i dont have a clear answer to, so would ask your advice on). i interpret marx within this same idea, that to situate the antagonism of labour as something resolved by national independence and solidarity must mean that marx saw the interests of labour in general as the development of national labours, and so a certain segregation between the subjects of labour, since without this, you only have an eternal imperial framing (i.e. impoverished third-worlders mass migrating to the first-world to cheapen wages). a contrary question to ask is, would marx have supported black nationalism? he supported irish nationalism as a revolutionary idea.
Its idpol but strategically communists should have neutral or centrist stance on these matters. Its best to agree with liberals and conservative liberals and try to find consesus.
>500 replies on a thread about mass immigration
Yeah, mass immigration without a genuine plan is extremely dumb, nobody would put 100 people inside their own home without knowing or having a plan behind it, it's insane.
>>2567221>how does this relate to irish nationalism? marx wanted to build an independent irish nation to collaborate with other nations.In the context of Ireland, Marx specifically supported Irish liberation under the context of weakening the English aristocracy. But Irish nationalism is not the end point, nor is it his solution to all of the issues plaguing Ireland, and post Irish liberation he saw a revolution in agriculture that would then set the basis for proletarian devopment in Ireland and so then revolution. That was his reasoning in supporting Irish liberation, not merely a vulgar devolution to the idea of separate nation states.
>yes it is. internationalism is about different nations working together.You didn't respond to what I said, I talked about the German and Irish in America, or the Irish and English in England. People fighting in the countries they are already respectfully in, as opposed to abandoning the struggle of where they are to only those who see themselves as to the state. And internationalism is beyond even just nations working together, it is about the working class itself working together under the recognition that the nation-state itself is weak in the face of capital. The working class is a bloc in of itself, one of which every territory and state is its claim and domain.
>is the working class international, or local?International. Not even simply by choice, the trajectory of capital simply makes it so.
>how does undermining england benefit the english working class? you have refused to answer this question. marx says that its harmful for english workers to have irish immigration, yet its beneficial to have irish independence. what could this mean?I didn't refuse to answer the question though, I stated clearly my response. Undermining the English aristocracy opens up the path for revolution by the English proletariat, as the dominion of the aristocracy in Ireland, it's wealth and capital, aid in their dominion of England. Irish immigration is "harmful" in the context of the artfical division sowed by the bourgeoisie, he does not draw a line between the liberation of Ireland as an end of immigration and therefore the reason the English working class should support it. That's the mentality not of a proletarian trying to revolt, but one trying to merely maintain capital on a national level. Marx and Engels are clear, Irish independence is "good" because of its weakening of the ruling class, and the revolutionary potential it provides, in spite of the fact that the English worker no longer is capable of being bribed with imperial gains. It's why class consciousness is so important, as on the surface the English prole marginally benefits in comparison to the one in Ireland, and can be "bourgeofied" as such into complacency, but still has much more to gain with the end of capitalism and the self-abolishment of class if he understood his place in the system and how the "boons" he receives is merely an excuse for longer term exploitation.
>what gains?Weakening of the dominion of the English aristocracy, which at the time used all manner to supress the struggle in England.
>does mass immigration lower wages? so, what causes mass immigration? capitalism. thus, reversing the cause should reverse the effect. this is basic. normalising mass immigration is capitalist propaganda, since it assumes an imperial framework.The data currently is unclear to what extent immigration lowers wages in relation to every other pressure we can observe against wages, but I never argued that mass immigration would persist post-captialism, merely that this idea that this would then entail a program of moving all proles not of the "nation-state" back to a given nation state is not something layed out by Marx. I'm not normalizing "mass immigration", I simply do not buy into the false dicotomy of "anti" or "pro". It just is, and how we organize regardless.
>why wouldnt the irish return voluntarily, since they were evicted involuntarily?New families, new jobs, a newly adapted to pace of life, etc.. Why didn't all the Irish in England vacate back to Ireland after Marx's time and the state of things had changed in terms of land evictions? Some may very well have, but many stayed around, and you can see this historically in most places.
>>2568517>They can be genuine but what i mean is when they're defending multiculturalism against their countrys working class, its the same everywhere and i have a feeling its probably the same in GermanyYou're performing a crass kind of workerism here, which is to say you're consolidating the working class into merely one body of thought (largely one that agrees with you), and then from that concluding that said thought not only proper but existent.
>The usual script throughout the whole world is this:>A working class guy starts complaining about migrants (they suppress wages or cause crime or rape people ect.)Which working class people? Even assuming there are some working class people who say this, most of he rhetoric seems to come from the middle class as well, and from the same multi-billion dollar media outlets you decry as saying the opposite.
>The Middle class multiculturalist response is to say "multiculturalism is our strength, X is a nation of immigrants" "X is a multicultural society", then justifying it by saying something like "The NHS in england was built by immigrants" and linking some article massively downplaying the home nations working class who actually built it, to take the achievements of the home countrys working class and place it upon the imported oneYou said this is repeated around the world, this really isn't something which I see extrapolated globally. And you are doing no better, simply then denying the effort of migrants so that you may dispose of one sector of the working class, in order to rhetorically "uplift" the social status of the "native" working class above the migrant. You play a part in the perpetuation of division, of one worker battering another for the smallest of gibs, as opposed to recognizing the mutual interest both hold. The middle class nationalist does the same as the middle class "multiculturalist", discarding the complaints of the worker who brings up issues not aligned with their national program, and stating that they are traitors to the "true" people of the land. The point is to reject the rhetoric of both, unite migrant and domestic, and supercede the false dicotomy in front of us.
>>2568355>Western Socialists and the Left are just ignoring the overwhelming wealth of data that shows that mass hodgepodge diversity leads to absolutely worse life and social indicators in every single aspect.The data does not show that diversity in of itself lead the worse life and social indicators, only that in the short term (in our current economic and social context), there develops a lack of social trust that is itself merely one component of the alienation between people observed today.
>The hilarious thing is the only place this is controversial is in the West, go outside of the West, and it's just considered basic common sense fact among all Sociologists.It's not.
>Literally 100% of Sociologists and Social Scientists in China for example believe different ethnicities and yes >races< (biological race is again a concept that is uncontroversial outside of the west and accepted by most non-western sociologists and genetic scientists) work better in homogenous groupings and mass diversity leads to worse outcomes.Not to be that guy, but proof? Most scientists in the East also reject the designation of "race" as well, as it's wholly insufficient when researching genetic ancestry. Where are you getting this?
>One study found it was "uncontroversial among all generations of I haven't seen this one.
>https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_ Forthcoming_ASR.pdfThis doesn't argue in support of your argument, stating that the effects are less deleterious as your making it out to be. Studying the effect purely in a Danish context (which the researchers acknowledge is limited is its applicablity), they come to the conclusion that in a micro context there is an effect on trust (due to the perception that someone of a shared ethnic group is more likely to hold shared views), but that this effect on trust (whole apparent) is marginal compared to other social factors which errode social trust.
>https://www.puttingourdifferencestowork.com/pdf/ j.1467-9477.2007.00176%20Putnam%20Diversity.pdf"E Pluribus Unum" doesn't argue what you're stating, being a rather glowing endorsement of long term ethnic diversity. I don't know why people bring up this study at all.
>https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403Infowars is not a source.
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-19/ the-paradox-of-diverse-communities2013 study cites by Bloomberg is not a source, and doesn't even argue what your saying as it concedes that "bridging" is perfectly valid in avoiding this.
>Of course the shitlibs in this thread will just cry everyone but them is literally hitler Not a liberal.
>and that Bougies actually hate mass migration despite bougies and banks literally spending the entirety of Covid demanding the borders be opened and who cares the human life cost.They like controlled migration, migrants they can't then threaten to deport surrender a vital leverage they use to supress and oppress migrant labour.
>>2570167>immigration is like literally taking people into your own homeGo back to pol dipshit
>>2570092>marx specifically says that solidarity with irish nationalists by the english workers is in their self-interest, divorcing it from humanitarian concerns.How is this a rebuttel to what he said?
>all labour movements are inherently national; that is a contradiction between workers which marx identifies.You are being myopic about this, Marx identifies that many labour movements of the day begin as national, but due to capital being a international system, mere petty national labour movements are insufficient in actually wholly overcoming capital. You're so close it can be infuriating. The only thing national movements can consequentially do is open up avenues of proletarian revolution. They can weaken the bourgeoise, but if they merely stop at a national level, even if it's multiple countries operating on a purely national level, the revolution is doomed to failure. Either because they fall to capital as capital is a globally interrelated system that overcomes the singular nodes of national capital by means of access to the vast economic nodes available to it (and the petty "national" bourgeoisie implicitly become aware of this, which is which is why even in the case of multiple "closed" economies, some of those economies will begin expanding their markets into each other to outcompete the economies that don't, and over time re-evolve to capital proper again), or because said system goes through the inevitable market contrdictions they do and so takes on a reactionary character where the still existent bourgeoisie elements reassert themselves and cannibalize the system in attempt to preserve captialism in spite of itself.
>indeed, we may read xenophon…In this paragraph you detail how capital trade grows to take on more and more of the global sphere, yet you fail to notice how mere arguments for national production and trade are selected out. The international overcomes the national, the global overcomes the domestic. This is the reality of all economies, of how classes expand their dominion, and how all those that don't are overcome and discarded. "National" capital can exist only for a short historical time before it is selected out by "global" capital. National movements are sufficient for a time, up to the point it seizes the nation state, at which point it can either expand to overcome the struggle in the global sphere, or wither internally and/or externally.
>the radical left paradoxically accepts this reality, yet seeks to expand its franchise, by seeing cheap labour as a necessary evil to fighting racism, with the idea that protecting the national interest of labour is an inferior struggle to protecting the interest of profit. The left does see cheap labour as a "necessary evil to fight racism", I don't know where you get this rhetoric from. It's not the "national interests of labour" vs the "interest of profit", this is to buy into the false dicotomy presented in the confines of capital. Rather, the answer of the left is that the interests of labour is a global endeavor, that the migrant is here and will continue to be here regardless of what one poltician may say or another. The question is then will we work with the migrant, or fight them to our detriment? The fundamental reality is that we cannot win without the migrant in the movement, otherwise we are overcome on all sides and forced into an arrangement in which the bourgeoisie holds all levers against us. To discard the migrant is to be trapped in a scenario of infinite nose cutting, where revolution merely becomes an exercise of "increasing wages" by means of cutting more and more parts of the proletariat off to satiate a prole in his position as a prole, as opposed to working towards the abolishment of "prole" in of itself. I think you are implicitly aware of this, as you come to the conclusion that "national socialism" seems to arise in the failure of revolution. What you don't get is that its consequence of your program being unable to expand beyond simple socdem national capitalist endeavors.
>i interpret marx within this same idea, that to situate the antagonism of labour as something resolved by national independence and solidarity must mean that marx saw the interests of labour in general as the development of national labours, and so a certain segregation between the subjects of labour,No, I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Marx was frequently in support of some national struggles, and utterly against others. The only consistent thread between how he decided between one or the other was how it may contribute to the revolution. Not all national movements are "valid" or useful. To go even beyond that, we don't preserve the independence of states for the sake of simply doing so. All states are the "right" of the revolution, it's workers it's "nation", to be taken and subsumed like how capital did before in its expansion and dissolution of a hundred states in its national to global expansion.
>since without this, you only have an eternal imperial framing (i.e. impoverished third-worlders mass migrating to the first-world to cheapen wages). Marx escapes this framing but just rejecting the dicotomy outright. The organization of labour makes migration a non-issue, as all labour simply gets added to the larger revolutionary base. You cannot cheapen wages if wages are set and workers are all incorporated into the same worker dominated structure. Even after, the effect of population on wages themselves becomes a non-issue when the money form is done away with and bourgeoise are placed under a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>a contrary question to ask is, would marx have supported black nationalism? he supported irish nationalism as a revolutionary idea.It's possible, though he didn't have much of jumping point to discuss this as slavery was the more immediate and pressing issue. But if he did go as far to support it, he would likely maintain the same criticisms he had of Irish nationalism, that it was insufficient and it's primary benefit was to lay the foundation for a later socialist movement to supercede it where it failed.
>>2567227>just wonder why these are the only optionsI never even mentioned Hitler, but to use Hitler as an extreme hyperbolic example, Hitler didn't come from nowhere. He's just an inevitable consequence, partly due to the kind of petty bourgeoisie "praxis" you support. And you didn't really address what I said, which is that you have to work with migrants to overcome capital, and that's the reality of it. The global economy is what it is, to supercede it you must work with the cards your dealt and step out of the game it tries to force you into to instead supercede it in its entirety. When push comes to shove, the bourgeoisie will work with every bourgeoisie they need to, even if on the face of things they "should" compete with one another, because they fundamentally understand that in the long run, they can take it all. You should learn from that rather being the same kind of power adverse leftist that got us into this mess.
>>2570846>The only thing national movements can consequentially do is open up avenues of proletarian revolution. They can weaken the bourgeoise, but if they merely stop at a national level, even if it's multiple countries operating on a purely national level, the revolution is doomed to failure.who said anything about "stopping" at a "purely national level"? the context is internationalism facilitated by nationalism.
>The international overcomes the national, the global overcomes the domestic.not quite; as i show, "free trade" is still largely serving empire, such as in the example of the petrodollar.
>The left does see cheap labour as a "necessary evil to fight racism", I don't know where you get this rhetoric from.question: should immigration be regulated? if no, then you support cheap labour as a necessary evil to fight racism.
>Rather, the answer of the left is that the interests of labour is a global endeavorif it was global, it wouldnt be local.
>The question is then will we work with the migrant, or fight them to our detriment?work with the migrant to do what?
>revolution merely becomes an exercise of "increasing wages"right, and to you, low wages are good, as i have explained. thus, you actively fight against the national interest of labour.
>Marx was frequently in support of some national struggles, and utterly against others.such as? an example would help.
>we don't preserve the independence of states for the sake of simply doing soso you dont believe in self-determination?
>The organization of labour makes migration a non-issuehow? increased migrant employment is only possible where national labour is unorganised. labour unions actively impose limits on employment to keep wages at a certain rate.
>all labour simply gets added to the larger revolutionary baseis the struggle of labour international, or does it exist where 8 billion people live in one city?
>You cannot cheapen wages if wages are setcorrect, you can only limit employment, which is why labour can only achieve higher wages in different markets (i.e. different nations)
>the same criticisms he had of Irish nationalismwhere can i read these criticisms?
>>2570986>Another attempt to promote Hitlerism and the fascist international out of hatred for brown people on leftypol Must be a day that ends in “y(t)”
>>2570887i still dont understand why theres only two options, but just give it to me straight. can you be a leftist and also be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a leftist?
>>2570440>That was his reasoning in supporting Irish liberationyou never mentioned the english working class, whom marx claimed would directly benefit from irish nationalism.
>Irish immigration is "harmful" in the context of the artfical division sowed by the bourgeoisiedo marx and engels say that irish immigrants lower the economic and moral status of the english workers? yes or no?
>That's the mentality not of a proletarian trying to revolt, but one trying to merely maintain capital on a national levelare the interests of labour against capital? if higher wages are in the interests of labour, then they are against capital.
>Weakening of the dominion of the English aristocracyare lower wages against the interest of labour?
>The data currently is unclear to what extent immigration lowers wageswhy do marx and engels claim without doubt that immigration lowers wages?
>I never argued that mass immigration would persist post-captialismit must be a bad thing, then.
>>2570989to further my thesis:
- is cheap labour a necessary evil to fight racism?
>>2567243Because only a hitlerite gives a fuck what a stranger looks like ya stupid honkie cunt
>>2570994No, but organizing with the smelly shitskins is a necessary evil for slitting the throats of capitalists and nationalist shills that would die for their sake
Maybe you misunderstand the mission of the communists, we are not interested in “making things better for workers”; the one and only purpose of our movement is to make war
>>2570995my expanded question:
>>2570991can you be a leftist and also be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a leftist?
>>2570998>Maybe you misunderstand the mission of the communists, we are not interested in “making things better for workers”if you dont care about workers, then whats wrong with cheapening labour?
>>2571000> can you be a leftist and also be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a leftist?Of course you can be a leftist and oppose immigration, you can be a leftist and even support capitalism; leftism is not communism, social democracy is a leftist political movement and it also empowered the freikorps to drown the German socialists and workers in blood to preserve German national capital; I am a communist and largely reject leftism. You can be a leftist and support hitlerism. This is why I am not a leftist.
> if you dont care about workers, then whats wrong with cheapening labour?Communists do not control the world market, their main objective is not to attempt to game the market to assist one set of workers against another set of workers, gaming the market is not a single one of our objectives. Destroying the market is arguably our objective. I think you just cannot comprehend what communists seek to achieve for their political project, because you cannot think outside the framework of a worker who fully accepts capitalism, the nation state, and the race. I am also a worker, but you act as though I am not, because I am not blind to my true enemies and only true allies.
>>2571006a more clarifying question:
- can you be a communist and be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a communist?
by the same degree, does the desire to regulate immigration make one inherently reactionary and therefore anticommunist?
>>2571007
>Of course race is real, filthy westoid, have you considered fascists outside the West fully believe in 6 distinct human races who are functionally separate species? The idea that the world isn’t a tolkienesque fantasy is a liberal myth. Read Gobineau, lib!
Every day Dengists prove that China is the greatest living example of national socialism ever attempted in human history
Also
>Rants about le westoid libs rejecting race science unlike based third world hitlerites
<the only study he posts is a pro-segregation paper from three europeans
Lel
>>2571007
>Not even scientists btw three bourgeois economists
lel
>>2571007
China posters radiating abnormal levels of Hitler particules confirmed once again.
>>2571012chinks joined the honororary cracker club now because they have a heckin based han ethnostate
>>2571011> a more clarifying question:>- can you be a communist and be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a communist?This is where I reiterate you do not comprehend how communists think to begin with
>What is communist opinion on capitalist policy? Organize the proletariat
>But what if the proletarians include stinky shitskins with funny hats and funny languages?Organize the proletariat
>But what if our wages get lower because the stinkies are willing to work for lower pay (because they dont have rights lmao) Organize the proletariat
>Okay well uhhh what if I want to split the movement because I hate the stinkies and might get a higher wage if I fuck em over Stop the splitters
>Okay well uhhh what if the bosses give the stinkies the deal I tried to get by splitting the movementOrganize the proletariat
Our objective isn’t to get a “better deal” for ourselves. Remember how Harriet Tubman treated runaways that got cold feet and tried to turn back? Any slave that wants to go back to the plantation and bargain for more comfortable chains will just be shot. Because they can only doom the other slaves with them, and won’t be shown mercy in the end by master anyway. Racial and national chauvinists with your exact logic split the movement to the bone, got all their little personal privileges that capital was willing to dispense for a short historical period when imperial superprofits and postwar rebuilding allowed for their dispersal, and once chauvinists like yourself (your ideological ancestors in the 50s) got that little stability they had wanted they turned their backs on the communists and radicals who died in the dark, and with their strongest lights extinguished and the masses at the mercy of capital, capitalists have taken everything from everyone including the splitter chauvinists themselves ever since
The points of defeat that aren’t reducible to brute destruction oft come down to the left integrating into the national state and/or a section of workers getting certain privileges to split them from the rest and also from the communist perspective back into a thoroughly bourgeois one
If you thought like a communist you wouldn’t even need me to explain why attacking the proletariat is contrary to the objectives of the communists; brown people aren’t magically not proletarian simply because they weren’t born on the soil you inhabit, communists do not choose among our class
> by the same degree, does the desire to regulate immigration make one inherently reactionary and therefore anticommunist?<does the desire to have the bourgeois state enact violence against the proletariat make one inherently reactionary and therefore anticommunist?Lmao fuck this genetic fallacy bullshit, an individual isn’t *inherently* anticommunist or reactionary, however being “anti-immigration” (this simply means opposed to migrants framed in neutral policy terms, which is opposed to the free movement of proletarians and their total organization in class terms) is an inherently reactionary and anticommunist position. A
position can indeed be inherently reactionary and inherently anticommunist even if an individual cannot be. It is reactionary in the most explicit sense, an attempt to turn back the tide on history, it is anticommunist in an implicit sense since it organizes the proletariat to attack another section of the proletariat under the organization of the national state under the sort of faulty stunted class consciousness that also produces antisemitism as an attempt to offset the fundamental contradictions of capitalism onto the racialized figure of the jew; that is, the vulgar workerist pretends that attacking one section of the proletariat under the direction and tutelage of national capital can somehow be “socialist” by hallucinating his class brothers and sisters as automatons of capital and not the same revolutionary class subject as himself, in fact, he only attacks the immigrant worker BECAUSE he does not see himself as the revolutionary class subject, even if he professes to do so as the vile strasserite might, for if he did, he would not be so hasty in trying to ensure he himself is better integrated to capital in his hallucinatory belief that he can save his wage floor by attacking his own class
>>2571026you appear to not be answering the question. formally, can you both (1) oppose capitalism and (2) oppose mass immigration? its a yes or no. i say yes, you imply no, but are too hesitant to announce it.
just say, as i have explained, that to you, cheap labour is a necessary evil to fighting racism, and the desire to raise wages at the expense of immigrants is reactionary - since as you have already affirmed, communism is supposedly not actually in the interests of labour, and so the interests of capital are progressive, since they force the ultimatum of the "two options" ive highlighted; hitlerism or the melting pot.
>>2571031My brother in Christ, only a liberal would fall for your retarded framing of the situation, I gave you an actual communist response. Communists aren’t liberal bullshitters which is why we don’t respond with campaign slogans.
>>2571034every other question was swiftly answered except this one: can you both (1) oppose capitalism and (2) oppose mass immigration?
just say "no" if you dont think so.
get it over with.
>>2571037That wasn’t what you asked to begin with, the answer is obviously no, only a retarded racist actually thinks in these terms lmao
>Can you oppose capitalism while begging porky to slaughter other workers for being shitskins so I can magically receive a higher wage (as a reward or smth? idk) and therefore have no actual reason to organize against capitalism?No, next stupid shitty question?
>>2571051>That wasn’t what you asked to begin withhere's my original question:
>>2571000>can you be a leftist and also be against mass immigration, or must you support it to be a leftist?to which you claimed that communism ≠ leftism, for which i clarified the question to substitite "communist" for "leftist", which you refused to answer, and finally i replace "communist" with anticapitalist, which you respond to. so all in all, you think hitler exists on the political left and this was the flaw in the question.
as for saying "no", is it then of consequence (by definition) that to oppose capitalism, one must necessarily support mass immigration, and the desire to regulate immigration makes one reactionary? the answer is yes by your own admission. so then, the interests of capital are somehow anticapitalist - this is where contradiction appears; yet, you claim that communism is both against workers and capitalists, so that must be how you square the circle.
>>2571054Working with the capitalist state isn’t anti-capitalist for fairly obvious reasons, does this answer any questions you may have going forward or do I need to explain why getting le welfare also isn’t anti-capitalist just as abolishing welfare and promoting austerity isn’t anticapitalist
Is there something off about your head that you struggle to think outside the terms of the left and right wings of capital?
Does it make more sense to say that communists have no loyalty to the nation, race, volk, religious community, or whatever else particular concern you feel tied to? Are you just heckin mad that commies don’t hate nighurs like your based friends on pol?
>>2571054Also capitalism is a conflictual system, there is no position you can take that relies on policies from the capitalist state that is not pro-capitalist and therefore anticommunist in nature.
The sections of capital that support the criminalization of migrants aren’t magically less capitalist than the sections of capital that “support” migration just because you perceive them to be race loyal
Of course this “debate” is largely a shibboleth erected from the interwar era onwards, prior to that border controls were non-existent and probably not seriously enforceable
>>2571066>Working with the capitalist state isn’t anti-capitalistcan a socialist party oppose mass immigration, or does that make them inherently capitalist?
>communists have no loyalty to the nation, race, volk, religious community, or whatever else or class, as youve said. in your own words, communism is not about making things better for workers - so then, what, or who is communism for?
>>2571069but youve already said that opposing mass immigration is essentially capitalist, while promoting it is anticapitalist. you seem quite confused.
>>2571054> yet, you claim that communism is both against workers and capitalists, so that must be how you square the circle.Communists seek to abolish the class relations of worker and capitalist entirely, yes
The mission of the communist movement isn’t to get a better deal for workers
It’s freedom
>>2571072No you fucking retard, both positions are pro-capitalist, they have nothing to do with the communist position at all, they’re both positions on what policy a bourgeois state should pursue to preserve the total interests of the bourgeoisie within it; the position of the communist is that the bourgeois state should be destroyed
You’re effectively asking me do leftists support concentration camps for the semitic untermenschen or “jewish exploitation of german workers”; the question has nothing to do with a communist analysis of the situation, the only answer the communist would give is that the fascist regime should be destroyed alongside the bourgeoisie
>>2571071> can a socialist party oppose mass immigration, or does that make them inherently capitalist?A socialist party can embrace national chauvinism, revise Marx, and turn around an attempt to stabilize his national situation in accordance with the interests of the bourgeoisie while also inflaming chauvinistic tendencies among the working class ensuring their further disorganization in the future
A socialist party can surely pursue such a short sighted, purely self-interested, class collaborative posture; indeed
It would also cease to function as a socialist party
> or class, as youve said. in your own words, communism is not about making things better for workers - so then, what, or who is communism for?There is nothing good about being labour power; communism seeks to abolish the social relation wherein individuals become abstracted into units of labor which is further alienated into a machine. Communism isn’t about reestablishing the nineteen fucking fifties
>>2571074right, so communism opposes workers, as you say.
>>2571079>both positions are pro-capitalistcurious, since a second ago, it was impossible to be a socialist who opposes mass immigration, and therefore it was necessary to support it - now, anyone who has a position on the matter is pro-capitalist (very helpful). thus as i clarify further, may a socialist state regulate immigration, or does this nullify their status as socialists?
>>2571082>It would also cease to function as a socialist partyokay, so now i have an answer. to be a socialist you cannot believe in any regulation on immigration; if you do, you are inherently reactionary.
>communism is against the interests of labouryes, i heard you the first time
>>2571087> right, so communism opposes workers, as you sayYes communism opposes the reproduction of the working class, maybe read the fucking book before getting hard-ons for Woody Guthrie while you retardedly think how happy you’d be to wage slave for just a higher wage oh god just a higher wage
> curious, since a second ago, it was impossible to be a socialist who opposes mass immigration, and therefore it was necessary to support itI just rejected your framing of the question you retarded aryan cuck, I rejected the framing the entire time in fact; the communist position has pretty much nothing to say on what a capitalist government “should” do and only what a
communist movement should do, which is organize the total proletariat regardless of national origin, race, or sex; the communist position isn’t to sacrifice part of the proletariat to save another part, it isn’t even to help the entire class negotiate with capitalists to receive a better deal, it is the destruction of capitalism. Does this upset you? Confuse you? Are you angry that, what, commies aren’t race loyal? You already knew this. And you know where the hitlerites are too. This is a communist board, if the communist position is disgusting to you, nothing is keeping you here. And you can rant and rave all you want about how dirty commies refused to agree and tell you that shitskin hoards caused your poverty and problems in life.
> thus as i clarify further, may a socialist state regulate immigration, or does this nullify their status as socialists?If the socialist project has collapsed to the extent that the “socialist state” in question itself reduces humans to abstract labor power and its political regime has oriented around the production of surplus value it would no longer function as a socialist state, we have already seen the end point of such a state of affairs, in 1979 all the way to 1991 and beyond
> okay, so now i have an answer. to be a socialist you cannot believe in any regulation on immigration; if you do, you are inherently reactionary.I mean maybe
you specifically are a genetic hitlerite if you want to consistently return to individuals being “inherently” reactionary as a concept
If you hold a violently reactionary position towards the proletariat, you are a reactionary, that seems pretty fair to me. You aren’t inherently one, you can try to understand the communist position, or you can disingenuously sink your heels in and consistently ask “Why can’t I be a communist and also hate nighurs?”. Anti-immigration itself is an inherently reactionary position and is thus an inherently anti-communist position, even if not everyone who holds to it is a full on fascist or even a conscious anticommunist. Consider this, you would rather waste your time here arguing to us that we just need to voot for some right wing party and help unions keep shitskins out of their ranks and out of the borders than go to /pol/ and try convincing them to organize against their bosses; simply being anti-immigrant has already turned you anti-communist in action if not in thought
>>2571089What is communism and who is communism for.
>>2571098i first assumed communism was left-wing, but apparently its not. then i assumed that communists were pro-worker, but apparently not. so im lost.
>>2571096>I rejected the framing the entire time in factyou gave a clear answer here:
>>2571051"no", you cant both (1) oppose capitalism and (2) oppose mass immigration.
>This is a communist boardits a board called "leftypol" and you already said that you arent a leftist…
>Anti-immigration itself is an inherently reactionary positionright, so as i have already extrapolated from you, the desire to regulate immigration is inherently reactionary. no need to repeat yourself.
>>2571104can a socialist state regulate immigration? (y/n)
>>2571114well as ive been told, communism is anti-worker
>>2571117so communists are not left-wing, and are anti-worker?
this is how i should understand things?
>>2571111>then i assumed that communists were pro-worker, but apparently not. so im lost.Yes you are lost
>>2571120Have you thought about making a career as a debate streamer? You'll fit right in lmao
>>2571129is that a yes or a no? i have had difficulty receiving answers from the scholars on this site before:
- are communists anti-left and anti-worker? (y/n)
and if you want to answer a previous question:
- can a socialist state regulate immigration? (y/n)
>>2571116>>2571120Either you are genuinely stupid or willfully playing dumb but sure I will play along with your pathetic charade.
Communism isn't anti or pro proletariat, but for a new economic system that doesn't have people divided into the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Just like neither classes existed in slave societies and feudalism, neither classes will exist in socialism/communism. To that end, the proletariat has most to gain in pushing the world to communism, since they have nothing to lose but their chains.
>>2571136i have already been informed that communism is not left-wing and is anti-worker, but i just want to confirm with the geniuses in this thread by a simple formality.
>>2571137>the proletariat has most to gain in pushing the world to communismso you do care about the workers' self-interest?
>>2530843What a polyp baitt thread
The euroach peninsula will be majority brown before the end of the century btw
>>2571144why does skin colour matter?
>>2571143>so you do care about the workers' self-interest?What is this "workers' self interest" of yours?
>>2571133It's a fuck you and drown yourself in a toilet
>>2571146you said its in the workers' self-interest to have communism a second ago. you presumably identify as a communist, so you seek what is best for workers?
>>2571151I seek communism.
>>2571152Because you are a purposely obtuse retard and it's really obvious. You're not clever at all lmao. At least you're entertaining me during my trainride.
>>2571157and is communism in the self-interest of workers?
>>2571158all im asking is yes/no questions…
if you cant answer them, then theres no need to project your anger at others. if you can answer them, refuse to, but still get angry, then something strange is happening.
>>2571159>and is communism in the self-interest of workers?Communism is in the self-interest of everyone in the world.
>>2571162so that would be a "yes"?
and you have already claimed that its specifically in the interest of workers to have communism - so would you say in fact that you are oriented in being pro-worker?
>>2571164>so that would be a "yes"?Are all rectangles squares?
>>2571167>Are all rectangles squares?according to google, no.
i cant help but to notice that like the other person, you seem reluctant to answer very basic questions. is there a reason for this? i would alternatively feel satisfied if i got a yes/no answer to these questions:
(1) is communism left-wing?
(2) is communism pro-worker?
(3) can a socialist state regulate immigration?
i had assumed the answer was "yes" to all 3, but ive been informed that the answer may be "no", so i am just looking for clarification.
>>2571177>Are all rectangles squares?>according to google, no.Jesus fucking Christ you really are retarded
>>2571178this would be easier if you just said "im not answering your questions", so that i wouldnt have to keep asking.
>>2571200The people who throw shit at each other arent the same people who migrated to Berlin just because they have the same race. I could easily pull out some photos of white Russians ripping their face off while nodding from Krokodil and say 'see this is why we can't have whites in our country', you are unironically a midwit
>>2571177>according to google, no.Why did you reduce my statement from "Communism is in the self-interest of everyone in the world." to "Communism is in the self-interest of workers."? If I say I love rectangles, google says it is wrong to say that I love squares.
>i cant help but to notice that like the other person, you seem reluctant to answer very basic questions. is there a reason for this?The reason is the person asking the question is kind of a moron that puts words in people's mouth to push an agenda. You aren't Socrates, you are Charlie Kirk.
>>2571202>each other arent the same people who migrated to BerlinHow do you know that?
>I could easily pull out some photos of white Russians ripping their face off while nodding from Krokodil The russians using krokodil are engaging in anti-social behaviour, idk about Russia drug use law, but they probably arrest people that sell and use this stuff. Thowing shit at eachother in a festival is accepted in India.
>>2571204>How do i know that people who are migrating under the H1b visa, many of whom are educated in Western institution themselves, are not out here throwing cowshit at each otherWell why the fuck do you think they always use footage from India my cracker friend??? Jesus fuck man, i know you people are pissed off because jeets take over your job but if you fall for this you have to actually be terminally stupid. I might as well ask
>Well how do you know American students in Berlin aren't the same people who shoot up fentanyl in homeless encampments in Seattle, huh? Huh? >>2571207>who are migrating under the H1b visaSo you agree that there is no difference only if immigrant renounces his shit throwing ways (if you believe the premise that going to college is enough to integrate someone into Western culture). If that so yu are conceding that there is a difference between someone who is immigrating from a shit flinging country and someone who is migrating in their own country.
>>Well how do you know American students in Berlin aren't the same people who shoot up fentanylFentanyl consumption and being homeless guarantees that you can't immigrate while you only need to take a shower if someone throws shit at you.
>>2571217you are using the most retarded right wing extremists to represent a ridiculously huge and diverse population of people, not all of India is BJP fascists eating cow shit.
>>2571229No, I am saying that there is a big difference between someone who migrates inside their own country and someone from the other side of the world, the shit stuff is just a way do illustrate it. To say that there it is the same thing is ignoring history, culture and language.
>>2571231why make this point? of course there are different processes for different kinds of movement as it is now, thats how capital wants it: restricted movement of workers, suppressing their bargaining power, with unlimited movement for themselves.
Why reify this dynamic with surface level racist bullshit instead of evening the playing field, giving the global proletariat its bargaining power back, and allowing free movement for all? of course there will be transitional periods, we can't push the 'one world government' button at once, there is a lot of colonial history to rectify, but obviously there is no reason for a proletarian government to restrict movement of workers on the basis of nationality or ethnicity, outside of practical concerns like restrictions based on medical procedures (vaccines etc. should be required), space availability (if there is literally no housing available in a space this should be considered), etc. we leftists do not want unregulated travel for all, we simply do not see the reason for these regulations to be based on ethnicity or 'nationality'
>>2571087>curious, since a second ago, it was impossible to be a socialist who opposes mass immigration, and therefore it was necessary to support it - now, anyone who has a position on the matter is pro-capitalist (very helpful). thus as i clarify further, may a socialist state regulate immigration, or does this nullify their status as socialists?Dude, you're the only one inserting he idea that being against "anti-immigration" rhetoric/programs means that you are inherently pro "mass immigration". Literally all your questions are loaded questions where you smuggle in your already held assumption into the premise. You also keep saying stuff like "support immigration to fight racism", or "if you are against nationalism, you're for global capitalism". This is dishonest as hell, and worse yet you reject people rejecting the dichotomy you frame, taking instead your framing as the only framing. This isn't a discussion, this is you trying to get answers you want without even considering what's being said to you.
>>2571231>migrates inside their own country and someone from the other side of the world, the shit stuff is just a way do illustrate it. To say that there it is the same thing is ignoring history, culture and language.You haven't traveled the US.
>>2571235Ok, but I not saying anything like that. My pointis that throwing all types of human migration in the same basket is ridiculous. Despite cultural homogenization promoted by American entertainment industryvthere is still a big difference between the peoples of the world, and these variations will cause disconfort. Although you can say that a lot of the immigration scare is rightoid nonsense, disregarding all of the complaints is counter productive. People one side of the world will be diferent than people from the other side and disregarding this fact is disregarding reality itself.
>>2571231>I am saying that there is a big difference between someone who migrates inside their own country and someone from the other side of the worldNah. It's the same. The same socioeconomic effect that played between the rural and the urban in the 19th century inside nations is happening between nations now.
>>2571249Like said earlier, refer to this image of a bald man with glasses
>>2571200 >>2571133>is that a yes or a no? i have had difficulty receiving answers from the scholars on this site before:> - are communists anti-left and anti-worker? (y/n)and if you want to answer a previous question:
> - can a socialist state regulate immigration? (y/n)Jesus Christ, I'm glad actually there are leftcoms in this thread, because dealing with you requires some stubbornness. Literally all of your premises are constructed in a way to get the answer you want and make assumptions based on your own beliefs divorced from how Marxists define things. You'll state that communists don't like eggplants, and that not liking eggplants makes you racist, someone will respond that that's absurd framing to begin with, then you'll respond that that's not a clear answer because they didn't accept your definitions or framing. Doctors want to cure diseases, therefore they are against the interest of sick patients. Abolistionists are against the institution of slavery, therefore they are against the interest of the slave. That's what you sound like to us.
>>2571256Not that anon, but not an answer. He's fundamentally right It's on a larger scope, but people like you back then felt the same as they do now about the same subject. The mass internal migrations from the rural to the urban in the US or the second wave of mass domestic population upheavals in Europe after industrialization are the best examples of this. People despised the cultures and "backwardness" of those outside of the cities coming in, bringing with them the vestiges of the "hick" culture they came from.
ctrl + F "CIA", "IMF", "World Bank" NOT FOUND
yall posting in a worthless radlib thread lmao. Imagine being unable to practice the most basic historical materialism to explain why foreign workers are fleeing Zionist rapist death squads in their finance debt enslaved countries that are controlled by some variant of ISIS or "narcoterrorists" (Marco Rubio gave a house to his cocaine trafficking step brother in Miami btw, very CIA coded activity)
>>2530961>the global south should send the west all their bright students…keeping the rest behind our people's militarized border Actually Existing Revolutionary Dialectics:
<Ho Chi Minh spent several years in France, primarily between 1917 and 1923, where he became an active socialist under the name Nguyen Ai Quoc. During this period, he worked various jobs, advocated for Vietnamese independence by submitting a petition to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, and helped found the French Communist Party in 1920. His time in France was crucial in shaping his anti-colonialist views and political activism.>>2545087>indigenous>Mexicanshttps://www.google.com/search?q=deported+for+speaking+mayanBernie Sanders thinks Trump is right to deport people for daring to speak Mayan in his settler occupied Zionist state
>>2531717>Third Worldists who refuse to organize for the common interest of all workers of all nationalities, "Palestinians are reactionary" the only thing you're educating people about is that 'Marxism is for spiritually Israeli armchair pseuds'
>regressing to a moralistic position of pity for Third World workers and resentment against First World workersI'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!
>>2531041>US/"Israeli" foreign policy is what created and prolonged the Syrian migrant crisis,Every neoliberal in DSA has gotten behind Graham Platner (controlled by the same PR firm that manages Zohran) because they are all Zionists who are aligned with international finance capitalism.
Socialists all say "Google Bookchin, smash the Stalinist authoritarian state for consumer freedom in Iraq and Syria and Ukraine and…" (insert countless other targets of woke PMC anarcho-Bidenists)
>The plan to create migrant crises through massive acts of global violence, profit off of said violence, exploit migrant labor, and create domestic chaos & division by using refugees and migrants as scapegoats for the crimes of the imperialist ruling class is one plan.Actually real fascism is when you're transphobic against the DSA. The Zionist warrior Graham Platner is a committed anti-fascist
deport them back to their country
>>2571145It makes timmycels seethe that the euroach peninsula will be brown
>>2571370If you do this world economy will completely belly up. This is why i compare immigration with other products of globalization like free trade, every downwardly mobile middle class people blame it for their precariatization, they vote for people who want to ban global trade, those voted people imposed a gazillion tariffs, and now you are all poorer than where start on
>>2571378I understand where you are coming from but this is just unnecessarily combative . Everyone will got mad if you say something like this, go to Saudi Arabia and tell them that by 2050 the Arab peninsula will be majority Hindu because of immigration from India and you will be sent to prison for blasphemy. Ppl are just attached to the conditions that they are familiar with, justified or not.
Sad to see this place grow ever more right wing.
>>2571379mass immigration is a tool used by the ruling class to drive down wages
>>2571379Oh no not the world economy I'm as communist as it gets but I would absolutely hate it if global corporate profits dropped slightly
>>2571626
Your own picture disproves your point. Just look at the middle east lmao. Isolation was not a thing in human history for most groups, even archeological cultures we have little information on are known to have had wide trading networks and vast migrations, like the indo-european one, the one that racists love so much.
>This beyond the absolutely retarded idea that evolution stopped in humans because of some fucking magic idealistic liberal reasons.
The idealistic reason in question is modern medicine. Half of all children, a huge percentage of women don't die shortly after birth, thus selection stops acting against things that would obviously kill the child or mother if not for modern science. C-sections, anaesthesia during birth, child vaccination, intensive medical care become common when in the past women just popped them out in the stable or at most with two other women helping her out nearby. We do not have natural selection because we prevent nature from selecting people out of the gene pool. It still happens, especially with diseases, but it is nothing like the natural selection we experienced up until 1900s.
>>2571850 (me)
Infant mortality is by far the biggest part of natural selection. You would know this if you knew anything about natural selection. Because it mostly just acts to keep us from becoming walking abominations with 30 genetic diseases, the evolutionary aspect is a very minor part of it that accumulates over time. Infant and adolescent mortality CULLS half of children, the evolutionary aspect we see in prehistoric human populations is like "people with this mutation had 10% more surviving children than others for some unknown reason, so they grew to take over the population over the course of 15 generations".
>>2571240>This is dishonesthow? i am getting to the essence of the matter. politics is no longer about class, its about whether you support immigration or not. thats it; the working class is no object, only abstract virtues can be considered, and for whatever reason, immigration is the greatest good that can ever be conceived, despite its lack of measurable prosperity.
>>2571203>Why did you reduce my statement from "Communism is in the self-interest of everyone in the world." to "Communism is in the self-interest of workers."?you specified the workers' struggle:
>>2571137<To that end, the proletariat has most to gain in pushing the world to communismyou have a very short memory - and why are you desperately afraid to say that yes, communism is in the interest of workers? youre entirely pathological.
>>2571883>how? i am getting to the essence of the matter. politics is no longer about class, its about whether you support immigration or not. thats it; the working class is no object, only abstract virtues can be considered, and for whatever reason, immigration is the greatest good that can ever be conceived, despite its lack of measurable prosperity.Bruh, you did it again, you inserted your own unfounded assumptions divorced from what is being discussed. Who said politics is no longer about class? The entire discussion regarding immigration was in regards to how class is primary. Nobody discussed "virtues", they discussed the reality and necessity of organizing the working class as a whole in order to supercede and self-absolish the class system. Nobody said shit about immigration being the "greatest good", only you seem to think that's what your opposition is arguing for no other reason then the fact that you can't address what they're actually saying.
>>2571626
None of what you're saying is scientifically accurate though, lmao. This is just typical angsty vitriol from a midwit 4channer (probably around age 20) who has a very poor grasp of biology and neurology.
Hilarious bonus points for thinking that 'the brain is where most of these differences occur'–if you actually understood macro evolution, and didn't derive your entire worldview from an unqualified midwit's assessment of misrepresented infographics and misinterpreted and partially selected papers, you'd realize just how much this statement of yours reveals the bluff you're making and indicts you, lmao.
>>2571928Moreover, I can promise with 100% certainty that this autodidactic example of the dunning kruger effect has 0 formal training in any of the subjects he's citing, to boot, lmao.
>>2571929One other thing, I've always found it funny how race realists exaggerate the 'radically different environments' as if they were a. sufficiently stable to produce such effects for the relative amount of time which would be required (even though geology, meteorology, ecology, etc. disproves this) and b. on par with a degree of qualitative difference akin to something like fantasy realms, just because something is (at one point, not even constantly to the degree required for the types of changes they imply to strongly manifest in group terms), say, a hot desert instead of a snowy mountain. Cold winters hypothesis is one of the most retarded just-so stories of all time, and completely overlooks the general difficulty of survival which can manifest in similar ways across supposedly 'disparate' environments.
>>2571883Politics is only about class. Always has been, always will be. You're ideologically obfuscated. The whims of people bitching about immigration are a misdirection relative to the real essence of the issue which then affects immigration derivatively.
>>2571626
>Like the typical braindead westoid. 19th century "race science" was just a western scientific cultural phenomenon trying to explain very real obvious biological and sociological differences between various major "racial" groups and guess what, genetic science, largely does confirm that 19th century "race science" was actually "more right" than wrong in it's broad classifications of there being several major distinct genetic groupings of humans, and there are, 6.
This is some internet pilled "I got all my info skimming four PDFs that were linked to me so I could argue race realism" shit. No, practically nobody in the field of genetics or the study of human ancestry breaks people up into 6 distinct genetic groupings. Genetics is way more complicated then that, and we've found that continually trying to force all of human genetic diversity into groupings that "just so happen" to match up with primarily US based divisions of "race" is unhelpful in studying ethnic ancestry.
>But again, just go tell doctors and surgeons they are wrong now and they shouldn't use treatments that are more effective to different "racial" groups becaus that's literally Hitler.
They don't dude. Ancestry can be helpful, especially for isolated populations, but that's not the same as "race" in the slightest, and conflating the two shows what you really are. Doctors and surgeons do not use treatments that are "more effective" for different "racial groups". At most, ancestry can help with gauging your probability for having a given condition (say a population in a part of New Guinea having a higher likelihood of breast cancer due to some early bottleneck that had people with a few genetic markers reproducing with people who also had those genetic markers), but it doesnt change the treatment you are given for breast cancer.
>The fact that Liberals and swaths of the Western Left can't parse the GENETIC REALITY that various groups of humans are actually pretty fucking different especially in regards to the brain where most gene differences actually occur, and fucking Nazi shit, is a you problem.
No, its a you problem. Hell, all of the documents you've attempted to link, which are themselves the most surface level "I skimmed and collected from the internet anything I think will agree with me without reading it" list I've ever seen, is still western research. Show me the "race genes" that differentiate how different "racial groups" fundamentally think. This is just you being a half baked pseud from halfchan that got inundated by "race realist" rhetoric once, never questioned it because of your dislike of liberals, never researched it due to your contrarianism and unwillingness to go into the field, and who's only recourse is to get riled up and talk like an immature teenager trying to blugeon forward his two bit theories about the world without any experience or humility.
>Again pure western hubris that literally nature itself has to adhere to Western "original sin" ideology around racism.
No, but its myopic and willfully ignorant to conflate ancestry with "race" and to ignore how such distinctions have historially held back the field and done damage to how we studying human genetics.
>Nooo non-western scientists, anthropologists, genetic researchers etc are wrong, because Westerners need to atone for heckin racism!
You're going to be shocked to learn this, but a lot of "western" research in genetics is done on an internnational level in conjunction with non-western researchers/research. You keep arguing that there is this consensus outside of the west regarding the validity of "race science", but that's just not true. I would go as far to say that most of non-western world in the fields of anthropology and genetics research flat out don't agree with you. Do you even have family or friends in the field? What even is your first hand instruction on this?
>>2571925>unfoundedcan you be a leftist and also be opposed to mass immigration? (y/n)
>>2571939can you be a leftist and also be opposed to mass immigration? (y/n)
>>2571954Trying to force the question into a yes/no dichotomy is special pleading. The actual answer is contingent upon the nature of your position and its reasoning. Thus, 'maybe'.
>>2571965Moreover, this doesn't diminish the original sentiment, i.e. that class is what is primary in terms of the hypostasis, not that you can understand how these things can be consistent at once, as you've obviously a retard (i.e. trying to force complex issues into y/n dichotomies as if you're on twitter. Does your brain have a 280 character limit, as well? No? Then fucking act like it, retard).
>>2571962okay, so political orientation is based around whether you support mass immigration or not, as i have previously affirmed.
>>2571965>The actual answer is contingentcontingent on what, exactly?
>>2571990
>Arguments consist of nuh-uh, “But this hypothetical Chinese person said”, “Your national origin is woke”, one pay-walled article nobody can read without shelling out $32 shekels, one “article” that links directly to a viral popup and nothing else
Your family should be arrested for not aborting you
Anyway does anyone else notice that 90% of Dengist and Z-faggot posters will literally come to this site, post Hitlerian level race science fantasies, shit up the board with worthless /pol/ speak, and then be pants shittingly enraged that you don’t take the based halfchan view of le global racial struggle between the “6 races” that mystically translate directly to the way european colonialists, neo-Nazis, and far-right online sites define them, and the unironic appeal of these fuckers amounts to hypothetical Chinese or Russian ultranationalists they never even quote (this cunt is linking papers by the exact “westoids” be pretends he isn’t a part of; the last paper he linked was by American and EU neoliberal economists and not actual scientists btw)
>>2571997
Skimming through that paper it basically says nothing about the hypothetical human races european colonialists came up with; in fact what I was reading said nothing about race and was only discussing genetic variance over the last 3,000 years
Were you just reading what you wanted to see into a paper about genetics ya dumb China worshipping pasty suburbanite? God are honkies stupid.
Why not produce the study that proves snow monkeys genuinely are a subspecies of neanderthal and not actually human while you’re at it?
>>2572001
>Why does biology matter in animals but not in humans?
You can literally read the legal documents wherein “races” were invented, they predate modern science, and it had everything to do with the class relations of colonial society; you’re a fucking moron, which makes sense considering you’re a dengoid (untermenschen)
> Why does large changes in genes matter in animals but not humans?
They don’t matter in animals nor in humans. Like what the fuck is “matter” supposed to mean in this context, exactly? Different human populations wouldn’t even qualify as separate subspecies genetically. Do you understand genetic variance exists within all species? Are you a fucking retard?
Oh wait, I got it, you’re trying to justify colonialism and racial terror :)
> why does massive difference in genes relating to the brain matter in animals but not humans?
Again, what “massive difference” are you referring to and what do you mean by “matter”? Is this another “Dengists stop being genocidal eugenicists and racial supremacists” challenge? Why do you think these things “matter” exactly? What do you think should be the consequences of the differences you seem to believe you have found?
Just cut to the chase where you advocate genocide so we all know to ignore your worthless pigskin ass
>>2572008
>All of this was always just to justify racial apartheid and terror committed against the working class
Yea I figured
Now it’s up to us to debate if all white dengists need to die alongside their families or just most
>>2571997
>There is larger genetic drift between ethnicities of humanity than between dogs and wolves.
No uygha lmao. The ammount of incest we have made wolves subject to isn't comparable to the incest of the last 10.000 years, which is the actual process that creates culturally defined races.
>Explain how Tibetans can process oxygen far better than regular humans
And indoeuropeans tolerate milk. We know that. The only two traits that haven't even differenciated into species cause of how short of a time they have been around.
>>2572017you are citing debunked psuedoscientific bullshit my dude. since the completion of the human genome project, it has been known that humans are 99.99% genetically identical, less diversity than any other animal (including fruit flies), and that any genetic diversity is primarily WITHIN 'racial' categories than between them. YOu are MORE LIKELY to be genetically similar to someone OUTSIDE of your ethnicity than someone of the same ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_geneticshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26902/chapter/1https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/researchers-need-to-rethink-and-justify-how-and-why-race-ethnicity-and-ancestry-labels-are-used-in-genetics-and-genomics-research-says-new-reporthttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Is_Science_Racist/auH5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:9780745689210&printsec=frontcoverbut to a fascist racist like you, any evidence to the contrary of your fucking RPG LARP 'playable races' categories is 'ideological propaganda/cope' so you will ignore this and find some obscure study carried out/funded by nazis or other racists.
>>2572130not just tibetans you retard, literally anyone who lives at high altitude will adapt over time. even within one person lifetime, even if no genetics change, a person that moves to a high-altitude place will process oxygen more efficiently over time.
fucking nazi retards, why do we not ban people like this?
>>2572160so you agree with him but think he should be banned?
why not kill two birds with one stone to make it fair?
>>2572167He didn’t agree with him you fucking retard, do you think he just argued you transform into a tibetan because your lung capacity increases???
>>2572301>”Slaughter children, the poor, and the elderly” ahhh graph Okay can it be hitlerites and their families?
Euroaches (hitlerites) be like:
>Brb looking for my graph showing the tax contribution of the bourgeoisie, petit bourgeois, and labor aristocrats vs the poor and unemployed
>>2572377
They don't want you.
>>2572160>literally anyone who lives at high altitude will adapt over time. even within one person lifetimeThat's not evolution lmao
>>2572017
> blahblahblah I am a literal 19th century bourgeois brit
> blahblah socialism should be national blahblah
> dengism is good because it forces those untermenschen Chinese to make cheap shit for me blahblah
>>2572377
Why not just get a Latina wife and have kids? I don’t know if you know this but race is made up and you’re perfectly capable of dating outside your race.
>>2572377
I mean you should be shot in your living room and tossed in a ditch for being a hitlerite I think asking if you should be allowed to immigrate is sort of neither here nor there at that point
>>2572512
>90% of the world is more reactionary than i am
its kinda hard to get more reactionary than nazism
>>2572524
>having a distaste for Jews
Only if youre a muslim. Its a forced meme in the west.
>and foreigners inundating
This is more universal.
>>2572512
>Uhhh did you know the majority of the world (who I have never met) are more “reactionary” than I, a Nazi labor aristocrat suburbanite?
Nope, kys
>>2571990>Yes they do, I've posted numerous studies here where they do that, the mods just keep deleting it.I read it and responded to it.
>No, they haven't.Yes, they have. If you have the time, sit in or audit a class.
>Did I ever say "US based"? No, there are broadly 6 major genetic catgories of human. Dude, they're largely US/European in origin. Its an issue of starting with arbitrary categories, and then slotting into those categories in a way that backs up the initial categorizations.
>But it does change the treatment in other areas.It doesn't. Knowing that someone has ancestry from a given area can be helpful for predicting/screening for certain conditions. Knowing someone is "Asian" or "White" isn't.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3I knew it, I fucking knew it lol. Holy shit, I'm going to go down this list and find you conflating SNPs with genes, posting "The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium", and linking Sesardic on heritability next.
>Seriously, why would major gene changes between races in regards to the brain, not have differences on how people think? These aren't major gene changes in regards to the brain, they are GWAS results. More over, the study only finds association with years of education, and nothing in regards to race or even intelligence.
>Again, there is no coherent argument against there broadly being 6 major racial categories. They exist in all major genetic data. There's no coherent argument, or you haven't researched the argument outside of the post I KNOW you're fucking quoting from.
>Yet we know as fact that 100% of scientists from China, that literally all research out of China that was studied, shows that race is considered genetic and anthropological fact by all Chinese language research. Have you ever thought the just sheer reality that Western scientists are dancing around ideologically with terrible fucking non-sensical arguments because they know how bad people would look down on "population genetics" if they actually just posted the narrative that aligned to their actual datasets?
Post proof, because I actually have family that corresponds internationally for genetics research.
>https://libgen.gl/ads.php?md5=d9089edb46ea65ecc4446b48951ea8e3&downloadname=10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7 .FUCKINGCALLEDITIf you're going to bother post Sesardic so you don't have to give yourself away by posting Charles Murray, you could at least be intellectually honest and not waste our time by posting the multiple scientific responses to him and why you find those invalid.
>The problem with westbrained retards is that you cannot literally think of things outside of pure Western narcissism and Anthropocentrism. Can you give a single coherent fucking answer why extremely isolated groups, with quite large difference in the brain itself, with thousands of different genes relating to the brains, wouldn't have different behaviours or focuses or think about things different? Why? Is it because you believe that consciousness is done on the spiritual level? Because I honestly believe that is what most of the west actually do think in practice.We don't make unfounded assumptions. We have no data to support such claim, and nothing in regards to the data we do have shows that people with a given ancestry fundamentally think in a different way from people of another given ancestry, particularly in isolation from culture or lived experience, and in a controlled environment of identical nutrition and exposure. There are no meaningful difference is brain structure or in the "genes" associated with the construction of the brain, particularly in regards to the physical functions one would associate with thinking "different". Please, show me the "gene", associated with "race", that shows a difference in neuron firing. In the branching of these neurons? No? You just took some SNPs and tried to imply that they were a given thing? Fuck off.
>why is biological essentialism fine in animals but not humans? Are humans not animals? Are humans not biological constructs? I don't think you know what biological essentialism is, because we don't use biological essentialism with animals either.
>I will always bring up, go to the Australian outback and hang around Aboriginals in remote Aboriginal communities and tell me they think the same, or even percieve time in the same way as Europeans do, because you know after just spending a few days with them, they just do not. They spent 40,000+ years in isolation from the rest of humanity, they evolved to the unique conditions of the Australian outback and had brains that geared to survival in such an extreme environment and energy conservation. Aboriginals percieve time very slowly, but they also percieve far more information environmentally. Throw a "60 autism score" aboriginal in the outback and a "140 autism score" European into the outback, and I will place a $1000 on the European to die first.Moving from data to anecdotes now. Do you have proof that the reason Aboriginals operate locally is because of a clear genetic component, or because of a myriad of other factors. Bringing up specifically aboriginals seems to also ignore the larger discussion we are having about "race" overall, and I highly doubt you are trying to make claims simply regarding aboriginal people.
>I mean for fuck sake, you have larger genetic drift between various human ethnicities than a dog and a wolf, yet magically, this impacts humans in no way. Europeans and Asians also went through rapid differing evolution as they left Africa, yet this apparently effected them in no way beyond melotonin. What are you talking about? Even by Fst measurements, which isn't even the best indicator when applied to all animals, humans don't even come close. Europeans and Asians, as well as Africans, do not have the degree of genetic differentiation you're implying.
>Unlike you, because you like most Westerner's are natural supremacists. I don't see difference between races as "bad" or negative, just another part of the human story and life on this planet. But because Westoids have to think about everything in heirarchy, you instantly think I'm saying that I think Africans or Asians are whatever are inferior, when that is not the case. But I do think, that biology, yes, does actually play a role in peoples behaviour and thought process, because if you don't, you functionally believe in a religious metaphysical reality, not a materialist one.Unlike you, I didn't get all of my information from the same post. I'm not negating people's behavior being affected by genetics at times, its just extremely marginal on a "ancestral" level. Even among "races", there is no reason for the human brain to bottleneck this way, or has been shown.
>>2572530It's actually a forced meme in the west to tolerate jews
>>2572377
I heard China has a critical shortage of BWC, the women are getting severe withdrawal symptoms.
>I'm not talking about 19th century race science, I'm talking about genetics. All I say is that 19th century race science largely broadly got the main "races" or populations largely correct in terms of genetic groupings. I don't think anything else is relevant from 19th century race science at all.They didn't though, and it massively set us back in term of ancestral study.
>In how animals behave, think, instincts etc.This is relative to an even larger degree to their physical morphology and the behavior that results from how they must use it (How does a bat think?)
>The only reason subspecies category isn't used in humans is ideological reasons. Again, Why does one deer that has a white tail, yet in almost every other way the exact same deer on the other side of the valley a different "sub species" yet this doesn't relate to humans when dogs and wolves have a smaller genetic drift than between human ethnicities? It usually isn't. in fact, multiple animals aren't "subspecies" anymore because of the fact that they don't have enough genetic differentiation. Dogs and wolves are a bad comparison because of how generally applicable "dog" is, but in short, humans barely even compare in regards to Fst.
>No, this is how your westoid brain thinks because Westerners seemingly can only view history through their own lens. Dude, you're a westerner. You wouldn't link what you have if you weren't, and if you aren't its even more pathetic.
>My argument is actually more akin to the prime directive of Star Trek. Aboriginals, Polynesians, Native Americans etc should have been left alone and differences in how ethnicitiers actually adapated and viewed the world, could be taken in account when crafting policies designed to help people or improve social cohesion.They aren't alone though, they're within and operating through society. This "prime directive" shit is even more patronizing, it comes off as some kind of western liberal who thinks that X or Y is incapable for a given group, ignoring the centuries of oppression applied to them.
>Genes relating to exactly how we think >rs708913(a) found broadly in Europeans and Asians, not broadly found in Africans >rs2099744(a) found broadly in Europeans and Asians, not broadly found in Africans>rs2420551(a) found broadly in Africans, not European.>rs9939991(a) found in broadly Africans not found in EuropeansCONGRATULATIONS, YOU POSTED IT. Wow, how did I fucking call that you'd reference the post I knew you would that take those SNPs from, from a GWAS that
YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ? You know how I know you didn't read it? Because they're randomly selected in a way to try and argue "racial cognition" in a way the researchers don't even do. The study was a majority Europeans, with an unreliable sample size for people who weren't, and tried to see if having certain "sets" of SNPs could be shown to correlate with staying in school. The reasons are unclear, and the effect is extremely small. SNP differences in "Asians" and "Africans" is barel discussed, is unreliable, and don't correlate in the same way because those SNPs don't necessarily "do" the same things between people of different ancestries. SNP X and SNP Y can have the exact same "effect" and do the same thing (even if its extremely marginal and shouldn't be taken as hard truth to begin with) despite being "different".
>You can go on like this for hours around genes relating to the development and structure of human brain. Yet apparently according to people here, genes that are important in regards to brain structure.. no impact on how humans think?How about you read the actual FAQ of the study you pseud
https://archive.is/rq832#selection-14457.0-14457.1025>Am I advocating for mass depopulation of immigrant countries? No, but I do think these should be taken into account when it comes adapting policies for different ethnicities. You are not going to grab Australian aboriginals and shove them into an office and think that is going to work dandy, and guess what, it doesn't. Aboriginals despite living in one of the wealthiest countries on earth and have ungodly amounts of aid and money thrown at them, still have the lowest life indicators on earth because they are adapted strongly to a niche.<Aboriginals despite living in one of the wealthiest countries on earth and have ungodly amounts of aid and money thrown at them, still have the lowest life indicators on earth because they are adapted strongly to a niche.<Ungodly amountsImagine calling us liberals, and then buying into an inherently colonial liberal framing of things. "The natives get their reservations and meager aid, they have the luxury of living in our country, and they still die early? Must be they're genes ;_;"
>I think this also matters in regards to yes, there is a lot of social conflict that comes between ethnicities, because they SEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY.Sure bruh, that's just built into their DNA chain. Ignore how anything regarding their historical and material conditions, they just don't think the same as me lol. Ironically, witnessing people of every ethnic group hitch their ride to white supremacy should have shown that people largely, for better or worse, don't think as differently as you think.
>How can you even pretend you will one some pure 100% functional ethnic hodgepodge society, if you literally ignore the material reality that different ethnicities SEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY on a fucking BIOLOGICAL LEVEL. (and this shows up in autism score tests)If you ignore every socialist state maybe. There is no material basis for different ethnicities seeing things differently on a biological level, and not the most "accurate" autism score test could even show this. Seriously, show me your measure and data for "races" perceiving the world differently on a biological level, this is an extraordinary claim that needs some extraordinary data behind it, and some of what you posted even backed it up.
>Nah dude, just shove a tiger and house cat in the same enclosure, they're technically the same right?Not even equivalent.
>I genuinely believe one of the major reasons we still have ethnic conflict between ethnicities even in countries like the UK, is people ignore the biological dimension that often african people and europeans or asians, literally do not think in the same way. (again, shown in autism score tests which are biased towards a European worldview)Again, actually provide proof for this. Not even Europeans think the same way between other near "identical" Europeans, so how are you actually measuring this? autism score tests grade learned pattern recognition, that's not an intrinsically biological European thing.
This is absurd and you're an absolutely pretentious fuck up. You don't read, you parrot. You don't investigate and then work towards arriving at conclusions by considering all the data, you start with a conclusion and then select every study you think backs you up. No wonder people give up having to respond to frauds like you, because by the time they have anything to say, you get off the cuff 5 more blind assumptions and unread studies. I know what you are.
>>2571978>okay, so political orientation is based around whether you support mass immigration or not, as i have previously affirmed.If they rejected class analysis, they also wouldn't be a leftist for us. It's the fact that being "for" or "against" mass immigration is a consequential rejection of class analysis and organization that makes them not a leftist.
>>2530843The 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 (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 (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 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, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
>>2571940>>2572854>>2571990>>2571997>>2572001>>2572004>>2572007>>2572008>>2572017>>2572022>>2572130>>2572158>>2572854>>2572888You are all wrong, the existence of Genetic Clines of various heritable physical characteristics (ie. Nasal Index, Cephalic index, Skin Color, Eye Color, Hair Color, etc.) combined with Autosomal DNA PCR clusters associated with various geographic populations is the Biological concept of Race, which I controversially do not believe is “Racist” in and of itself, as their is nothing wrong with scientific studies on the beautiful Phenotypic variation inside the Human species that is shown on this interesting website
http://humanphenotypes.net/ , and it is frankly ridiculous to claim that a German, a Yoruba, and a Chinese person look the same, as anyone who is not blind can easily differentiate between them, Forensic Anthropologists can tell whether an individual is of West Eurasian/“Caucasoid’, East Eurasian/“Mongoloid”, Sub-Saharan African/“Negroid’, or Southern Eurasian/Australo-Melenesian/“Australoid” Racial ancestry based on differences in their Skull Structure/Cranial Measurements, and Population Geneticists can tell your ancestry through your Autosomal DNA PCR clusters and Y-DNA Haplogroups, and Physical Anthropologists in the USSR published Racial Typologies and recognized Race as a Biological reality, as the Biological concept of Race only becomes “Racist” if you do what the Nazis and Southern Crackers did, and use these Biological categories as an excuse to oppress/exterminate populations based on the Pseudo-Scientific Eugenicist idea that Race is linked with intelligence, and that certain Races are “Superior” or “Inferior” in some schizo hierarchy, as any Marxist knows that the concept of “Intelligence” is based on whatever is or is not valued in a specific Mode of Production, and that what people call “Intelligence” has been scientifically proven to be overwhelmingly the result of Environmental/Socioeconomic factors over genetics, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️🧬!
Since we are on the topic of Population Genetics, I have posted 4 In-depth Charts of Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components associated with various Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions (ie. Germanic, Slavic, Italic/Romance, Celtic, Baltic, Graeco-Albanian/Balkanic, Armenian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, etc.) across various Indo-European and Non-Indo-European speaking populations in Europe, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Siberia, South Africa, and the Americas, in comparison to various Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components associated with Non-Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions, along with a Chart of the Autosomal DNA Ancestry Makeup of each of the Indo-European and Non-Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions shown in the first 4 Charts, based on the proportion of Indo-European Steppe and Non-Steppe Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components, with all of these charts coming from the same video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FJaTRFojJg of “The History of Indo-European Peoples, Languages and Ancestry from 5000 BC to 2025 AD” that cites 33 Academic articles published on Population Genetics, ✊😜🧬!
>>2570986>who said anything about "stopping" at a "purely national level"? the context is internationalism facilitated by nationalism.Internationalism cannot be facilitated be nationalism in the long run, as the project becomes one of maintaining the nation-state, even to the eventual detriment of the proletarian struggle of self-abolishment. When Marx says the working class have no country, are you implying instead that they must reify the idea of country?
>not quite; as i show, "free trade" is still largely serving empire, such as in the example of the petrodollar.This doesn't contradict what I stated, and only supports it.
>question: should immigration be regulated? if no, then you support cheap labour as a necessary evil to fight racism.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? You start at A, and then jump to F. There's nothing I stated that implied such, especially with the program I support doing away with the concept of "cheap labour".
>if it was global, it wouldnt be local.Its global as it evolves from the local. These aren't separate, they are a path.
>work with the migrant to do what?To organize, unite, and eventually revolt against the bourgeoisie to establish a DotP.
>right, and to you, low wages are good, as i have explained. thus, you actively fight against the national interest of labour.Where did I say low wages are good? You seem to be putting words in my mouth. Its just revolution isn't an exercise in merely "increasing wages", just as a revolt against slavery isn't merely "improving the meal intake of the slave". The global interest of the proletariat is the "national" interest of labour.
>such as? an example would help.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_02_07.htm<Now you, may ask me, whether I have no sympathy whatever for the small Slavic peoples, and remnants of peoples, which have been severed asunder by the three wedges driven in the flesh of Slavdom: the Germans, Magyars and Turks? In fact I have damned little sympathy for them. The Czecho-Slovak cry of distress ‘Boze ak jus nikto nenj’ na zemi ktoby Slavom [sic] spraviedlivost cinil?’ ['Is there, oh God, no man on earth who will render the Slavs their due?’ – ed] is answered from Petersburg, and the entire Czech national movement tends in a direction in which the Tsar will spraviedlivost ciniti [render them their due – ed]. The same with the others, Serbs, Bulgarians, Slovenes, Galician Ruthenes (at least in part). But we cannot stand for these aims. Only when with the collapse of Tsarism the nationalist ambitions of these dwarfs of peoples will be freed from association with Panslavist tendencies of world domination, only then we can let them take their fate in their own hands. And I am certain that six months of independence will suffice for most Austro-Hungarian Slavs to bring them to a point where they will beg to be readmitted. But these tiny nations can never be granted the right, which they now assign to themselves in Serbia, Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, to prevent the extension of the European railroad net to Constantinople.Marx supported Polish national liberation, but was against Czech national liberation due to it being perceived as a tool of Pan-slavism.
>so you dont believe in self-determination?Not in all cases, no. That would be myopic.
>how? increased migrant employment is only possible where national labour is unorganised. labour unions actively impose limits on employment to keep wages at a certain rate.Employment limits are more the domain of yellow unions. A united labour struggle negates the ability to reduce wages outright to begin with no matter who is hired, and works primarily towards the goal of revolt. A given company might be unable to hire due to be being unable to fire any of their given staff, but that's different then making the focus of the movement the reduction of migration. Regardless, like I said, organized labour makes migration a non-issue, no matter what way you slice it.
>is the struggle of labour international, or does it exist where 8 billion people live in one city? Both, it doesn't matter the place or context.
>correct, you can only limit employment, which is why labour can only achieve higher wages in different markets (i.e. different nations)I don't understand this, the wages are already being fought for and set by the proletariat.
>where can i read these criticisms?https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/ireland/ireland.pdfPage 155 and after.
>>2572903>>2572911>Conflating race with ancestry againKing Lear coming in again to be lolcow that makes "global SSRs" like one would play EU4. Genetic clines are not the same as race, especially in regards to what we are talking about. No ones even denying phenotypes, no one who questions the validity of the categorizations of "race" does. This is some "how can you deny race when people look different" levels of rhetoric. At least you reject correlation between intelligence and "race", but talking about "race" instead of ancestry when referring to a giant list of genetic ancestries is self-defeating.
>>2572920Genetic Clines with associated Phenotypic traits are just the PC way for Population Geneticists and Physical Anthropologists to talk about Race without all the embarrassing/pathetic Nazi and Southern Cracker baggage, with Western Eurasian being the PC term for Caucasoid/Europid, Eastern Eurasian being the PC term for Mongoloid/Mongolid, Sub-Saharan African being the PC term for Negroid/Negrid and Southern Eurasian/Australo-Melenesian being the PC term for Australoid/Australid, in modern Population Genetics, while Forensic Anthropologists still use the original terminology because they still use actual Skull Measurements to classily deceased individuals into one of the major Racial categories for Forensic identification purposes and thus don’t have to worry about PC backlash, and this handy list I created shows each of the Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components in the Charts I posted at
>>2572911 paired with their dominant Racial phenotype (you can go on
https://humanphenotypes.net/index-2.html to find descriptions of all of them), ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️🧬!
Proto-Slavic=East Europid
Proto-Baltic=East Europid
Proto-Germanic=Teuto Nordid and Dalo Nordid
Proto-Celtic=Alpinid
Proto-Italic=Gracile Mediterranid
Early Graeco-Albanian=Dinarid
Proto-Armenian=Armenid
Proto-Iranian=Iranid
Proto-Indo-Aryan=North Indid
Tocharian=Turanid
Pre-Greek Anatolian=Armenid
Andronovo=East Nordid
Pre-Iranian Southern Central Asia=Iranid
Baltic Bronze Age=East Europid
Pomeranian=Alpinid
Ireland and Brittany Bronze Age=Atlanto Mediterranid and Unreduced Cromagnid
Britain South Bronze Age=Atlanto Mediterranid
France North Bronze Age=Alpinid
France South Bronze Age=Alpinid
Pyrenees Bronze Age=Atlanto Mediterranid
Iberia Bronze Age=Gracile Mediterranid
Paleo-Sardinian=Gracile Mediterranid and Unreduced Cromagnid
Pre-Graeco-Albanian Greece=Gracile Mediterranid
Proto-Kamas-Selkup=Sibirid
Proto-Ugric=Sibirid
Paleo-Laplandic=Lappid
Pre-Baltic Finnic Archangelsk=Lappid
Proto-Permic=Lappid
Proto-Volga Finnic=Lappid
Proto-Finno-Saamic=Lappid
Baikal Bronze Age=Sibirid
Proto-Mongolic=Tungid
Proto-Turkic=Tungid
Tibetan=South Mongolid
BMAC=Iranid
Pre-Iranian Zagros=Iranid
Pre-Indo-Iranian Hindu Kush=Indomelenid and Gracile Indid
Dravidian=Indomelenid and Gracile Indid
Pre-Indo-Aryan Himalayas=Veddid and South Mongolid
Austroasiatic Bengal=Indomelenid and Veddid
Pre-Sarmatian Circassian=Armenid
Pre-Sarmatian Nakh=Armenid
Dagestanian=Armenid
Urartian=Armenid
Pre-Iranian Azerbaijan=Armenid
Roman Middle Eastern=Arabid and Armenid
Roman Middle Eastern and North African=Arabid and Berberid
Sub-Saharan African=Negrid
Native American=Indianid (various Mongolid Subraces of the Americas)
Guanche=Berberid
>>2570991>you never mentioned the english working class, whom marx claimed would directly benefit from irish nationalism.Yes, by weakening the English aristocracy.
<First, Ireland is the bulwark of English landlordism. If it fell in Ireland, it would also fall in England. In Ireland this is a hundred times easier, because the economic struggle there is concentrated exclusively in landed property, because the struggle there is at the same time a national one, and because the people there are more revolutionary and more embittered than in England. In Ireland, landlordism is maintained solely by the English army. The moment the forced union between the two countries ends, a social revolution will break out in Ireland, even if in outmoded form. English landlordism would not only lose a substantial source of its wealth, but also its greatest moral force – that of representing the domination of England over Ireland. On the other hand, by maintaining the power of their landlords in Ireland, the English proletariat makes them invulnerable in England itself.>Engels say that irish immigrants lower the economic and moral status of the english workers? yes or no?Initially, he wasn't very generous to the Irish, no. Later on, he instead felt the English proletariat had been "bourgeofied", instead benefiting from the explotation of the Irish.
<The Jones business is most distasteful. He held a meeting here and the speech he made was entirely in the spirit of the new alliance. After that affair one might almost believe that the English proletarian movement in its old traditional Chartist form must perish utterly before it can evolve in a new and viable form. And yet it is not possible to foresee what the new form will look like. It seems to me, by the way, that there is in fact a connection between Jones’ new move, seen in conjunction with previous more or less successful attempts at such an alliance, and the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. Only a couple of thoroughly bad years might help here, but after the discoveries of gold these are no longer so easy to engineer. For the rest it is a complete mystery to me how the massive overproduction which caused the crisis has been absorbed; never before has such heavy flooding drained away so rapidly. https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm<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. How this process will develop is difficult to say. India will perhaps, indeed very probably, produce a revolution, and as the proletariat emancipating itself cannot conduct any colonial wars, this would have to be given full scope; it would not pass off without all sorts of destruction, of course, but that sort of thing is inseparable from all revolutions. The same might also take place elsewhere, e.g., in Algiers and Egypt, and would certainly be the best thing for us. We shall have enough to do at home. Once Europe is reorganised, and North America, that will furnish such colossal power and such an example that the semi-civilised countries will follow in their wake of their own accord. Economic needs alone will be responsible for this. But as to what social and political phases these countries will then have to pass through before they likewise arrive at socialist organisation, we to-day can only advance rather idle hypotheses, I think. One thing alone is certain: the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing. Which of course by no means excludes defensive wars of various kinds.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_09_12.htm>are the interests of labour against capital? if higher wages are in the interests of labour, then they are against capital.You should read this.
<Firstly. A general rise in the rate of wages would result in a fall of the general rate of profit, but, broadly speaking, not affect the prices of commodities.<Secondly. The general tendency of capitalist production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages.<Thirdly. Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch03.htmAnd more generally this:
<The British labour movement is to-day and for many years has been working in a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours without finding a solution; besides, these strikes are looked upon not as an expedient and not as a means of propaganda and organisation but as an ultimate aim. The trade unions exclude on principle and by virtue of their statutes, all political action and consequently also the participation in the general activity of the working class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into adherents of the ministry of Disraeli (Beaconsfield) and adherents of the Gladstone ministry. We can consequently speak about a labour movement here only in so far as strikes are waged here, which, whether successful or not, cannot lead the movement one step further. When such strikes, which moreover, during the last years of depression have often been called by the capitalists themselves, in order to have a pretext for closing down their factories, when such strikes, during which the working class does not move even one step forward, are magnified to the proportions of a world-historic struggle … then, in my opinion, this can only bring harm. We must not pass in silence over the fact that at the present moment no real labour movement, in the continental meaning of the word, exists here. (24)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lozovsky/1935/marx-trade-unions/ch04.htm>are lower wages against the interest of labour?You ignored what I just said.
>why do marx and engels claim without doubt that immigration lowers wages?Early limited observation.
>it must be a bad thing, then.Why the assumption? Its not that its "bad" or "good", its just that it is in capitalism, and likely wont be after.
>>2572929>Genetic Clines with associated Phenotypic traits are just the PC way for Population Geneticists and Physical Anthropologists to talk about Race without all the embarrassing/pathetic Nazi and Southern Cracker baggage,This is some mega cope. There is a reason race isn't used, and its beyond just "were embarrassed to use it". It just isn't sufficient, and your own half researched trawl shows why.
>Forensic Anthropologists still use the original terminology because they still use actual Skull Measurements to classily deceased individuals into one of the major Racial categories for Forensic identification purposes and thus don’t have to worry about PC backlash,No they don't lol, what are you talking about? Forensic Anthropologists haven't used the Caucasoid, Mongoloid Capoid, etc. in like two decades, and only have sort into racial categories upon the breakdown of ancestry because US investigations largely demand that the race of the victim be place into certain racial designations (White, Black, Asian, etc)
>this handy list I created shows each of the Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components in the Charts I postedDoesn't prove your case at all, and I still don't know why you think it does.
>paired with their dominant Racial phenotype (you can go on https://humanphenotypes.net/index-2.htmlDude, stop posting humanphenotypes.net. Its not a valid website and its data is an unverified hodpodge of sources ranging from outdated to unironic Nazi anthropologists. It's borders between ignorance to flat out propaganda.
>>2570092Smith anon, your posting style makes me feel like I'm reading Eric Hobesbawm again. I say that with no ill intent.
>>2570092> trump has openly stated that certain businesses need undocumented immigrants to stay afloat, with a similar sentiment on the liberal left (e.g. "who will clean the toilets?"). the radical left paradoxically accepts this reality, yet seeks to expand its franchise, by seeing cheap labour as a necessary evil to fighting racism, with the idea that protecting the national interest of labour is an inferior struggle to protecting the interest of profit. thus, the condition of this rhetoric in all cases, is a struggle of national labour versus international capital, and so we endlessly return to "national socialism" (a crisis which i dont have a clear answer to, so would ask your advice on)the answer is international proletarian solidary and international class struggle, but the barrier to building that is national chauvinism and various bigotries, but people will cry "liberalism! idpol!" if you point that out. Labor movements are crushed by capital if they remain ethnonationalist.
>>2572888meant 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 wagescan one company hire 8 billion people?
>I don't understand thisof course not. you think 8 billion people can live in one city and have high wages. youre confused.
>after 155cant find it. quote it for me.
>>2573059thx.
>>2573061is there a way to have solidarity while also regulating immigration?
>>2572894okay, 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, nohe? 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.htmso the only way you have a point is to be deceptive? ok.
>You should read thisso you must be against labour unions too.
>Early limited observation.its been proven.
>Its not that its "bad" or "good"🤣🤣 so pathetic.
>>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 internationalismThis 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>shouldYou 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
>>2573207Go sit in the dunce chair. You failed that analysis.
>>2573758>I do not, nookay, 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 reallyokay, 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 peopleYou’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
>>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.
>>2574332from 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 fascistsFascism is just authoritarian liberalism.
>>2575575so you are left-wing but dont believe the people should rule?
>>2575576I firmly believe that that anyone opposing proletarian democracy should be murdered.
>>2575569Better that then being a racist bourgeois ass licker as you, drown yourself
>>2575580so you do believe in democracy, then?
>>2575597i dont talk to fascists
>>2575598You cant have socialism without collective ownership. Collective ownership requires democracy.
>>2575613so you support democracy then?
>>2575616Of course. All power to Soviets but I mean it unlike Bolsheviks.
>>2575621okay, so in this thread there are left-wing democrats and right-wing non-democratic people who both call themselves "communists", so its bewildering.
>>2575635Even 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.htmNow 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, 1916https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01Now 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-029Now 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
>>2587428It 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?
>>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 USSROkay but I live in the Imperial Core and it getting nuked won't help my material conditions.
>>2587446No treats for first worlders
>>2587448So 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
>>2587443Modern 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"
Unique IPs: 230