/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>rights
if the bourgeoisie give you "rights" they can also take them away
>end borders
>no human is illegal
not possible under capitailsm

OP is peak liberal idealist nonsense. Read a book.

"borders? what's up with that?"

Im in favor of abolishing borders as long as we adopt a strict international 2-child policy

I don't know. I used to be more sympathetic to that position but in the post-1991 world it just mean the most degenerated bourgeois element that made their home country an open air sewage coming to your country with their ill-gotten capital to turn it into the same stratified dump they "left behind", importing all of their grievances in the process and eventually taking over your foreign policy agenda. That being said i don't care about low-level worker immigration and the likes, Mexicans in the US and Algerians in France arent the biggest issue on the long term.
A leftist ICE that target these subversive bourgeois-adjacent diasporas would be a very good thing to plan.

Another aspect of the Diaspora Bourgeois thing is they are essentially luxury citizens in their new country, with a host-parasite relationship with the indigenous and poor foreigner masses of the nation. And that is the case regardless of the personal wealth of said bourgeois diaspora, some of which are just middle-class in the litteral sense but possess the bourgeoisie network and patronage which make the able and encouraged to quickly take important positions in relevant institutions. Unlike the national bourgeoisie they have absolutely no interest in the long term well being on the country in any way despite paying lip service to the idea in public, they are there to take control of the foreign policy department.
Case in point with Iranians, Israelis and gusanos in the US, Lebanese and Sepharadi Jews in France, Indians in the UK etc.

>>2870525
Borders like most laws effectively don't apply to the bourgeois though. They can pay and influence themselves to having visas or even nationalities easily.

>>2870545
There is a moral and anthropologic hierarchy within the bourgeoisie. Engels isnt Vivek Ramashwamy because they are both bourgeois. Lenin isnt Marco Rubio because they are both mixed-race and comes from the privileged upper middle class of the periphery. Denying this is a form of nihilism

I think all countries in the periphery and very close to the center (Cuba, Serbia, Belarus) should become hubs for the Third world and their policy should be helping them reach the center really quickly. A transitional migratory republic if you will.

>Borders are an archaic and barbaric concept
It's literally the opposite… Humans were nomadic before they became settled. Nation states are modern constructs.
>A real crime
>Lynch ICE
Is murder not a real crime? You are all over the place.

>>2841524
You do yourself a disservice: borders are not an archaic concept in the true sense of the word. It is true that they are outdated and characteristic of a more primitive time, but that time itself is not so old. Britain for example did not have formal border control until 1905, and with the exception of Russia one could travel Europe freely without passports or visas. The only "border control", such as it was, was customs, control of (really, taxation of) the movement of goods rather than people.

Contrarily, the principle of free movement within a country is relatively recent considering how fundamental we now consider it, generally dating to around the 18th-19th century. The principle, we are asked to imagine, is that an Englishman can move to Scotland and this is fine and good (the UK being a good example of why this is not in fact even about the abstraction of the "nation", consisting as it does of several nations), but when a Polish man moves to England this is unacceptable.

>>2841527
Why should it not be possible under capitalism? Was Britain not capitalist in 1904?

>>2870525
>>2870541
You are too pessimistic and take the abstraction of a "country" too seriously. Just as free movement allows undesirable elements to come to "your" country, you are free to leave that country and meet up with more desirable elements elsewhere. At the moment we have the worst of all worlds: the people you identify are free to move as they please, but you are not.

>>2870570
>It is true that they are outdated and characteristic of a more primitive time
No they're not. Borders as we know them are modern, not "primitive".

>>2870587
Sorry unc but capitalism is globalized now and the nation states and borders are an artifact of pre monopoly capitalism so they're antiquated

>>2870591
>capitalism is globalized now
It was always globalised. Capitalism according to Marx precisely begins with the world market.
>nation states and borders are an artifact of pre monopoly capitalism
If this is the case, then why did formal border controls only begin in the 20th century for Britain and not earlier? Borders are seeming to strengthen as capitalism progresses. Of course, communist experiments like USSR and North Korea also practice strong border controls - so it is a modern logic for the imperative of production, whilst in cosmopolitan antiquity, nobody was kept territorialised except by personal preference, as we can read in Plato's Crito.

>>2870596
When the world market appeared only a small minority of earth polities partook in the capitalist mide of production, today all of them do - except for sentinel island which has the strongest borders of all since they kill you on the spot when you cross it. Border is therefore primitive

>>2870601
>they kill you on the spot when you cross it.
People have visited them before. This pic is from 1991.

>>2870549
>discovers race realism from first principles
Nice to see you catching up.

>>2870558
Serbians, famously known for their tolerance of third-worlders.

>>2870587
it is difficult for me to see how you could've read the entire paragraph and come to the conclusion i do not know this.

>>2870494
Politics? What's up with that?

>>2870570
I think there is also a good argument that tightening of boarders did a lot to stem revolutionary movements, which always heavily relied on travel and internationalism.

https://www.eurcomact.org/m-article/Statement-of-the-European-Communist-Action-on-the-World-Refugee-Day-2026/

We declare our solidarity with refugees and migrants and demand:

• Respect for international law based on the Geneva Convention on Refugees, human rights and the right to seek asylum;
  
  
• The provision of travel documents to ensure safe passage and protection for refugees and migrants;
  
  
• The abolition of forced deportations, arbitrary detention and all forms of collective expulsion;
  
  
• The closure of detention centres, refugee camps and the so-called return hubs that violate human dignity and fundamental rights;
  
  
• Equal rights for all workers regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion or migration status;
  
  
• Full access to work, housing, healthcare, education and social protection for all, including for children and unaccompanied minors;
  
  
• The abolition of anti-migrant legislation, discriminatory labour regulations and all measures that facilitate the super-exploitation of migrant workers;
  
  
• The abolition of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, the recent unacceptable regulation on deportations, the Dublin Regulation and all anti-people migration policies of the EU;
  
  
• The dismantling of Frontex and all mechanisms of repression directed against refugees and migrants.
  
  
  
  

Imperialist interventions and war, capitalist profit-driven resource extraction, inequality and climate change, create conditions that force people to flee their homes, depriving millions of people of the possibility to live in peace, security and dignity in their own countries. Only the struggle against capitalism can eliminate the root causes of forced migration.

>>2870608
Not really. Per race realism standards Rubio is Lenin's natural better because he is more white than than the euroturkic mutt from tatarstan, which is just incorrect even from an anti-bolshevik perspective.

"right to movement" is a spook, mass immigration is a tool used by the ruling class to drive down wages.

>>2870857
Maybe we should do something about that pesky ruling class then. Borders are spook btw

why do pseudo-revolutionary leftoids love throwing around "archaic" as though that is meant to damn something when really what actual material and historical analysis often reveals is not how archaic things are but how novel (hence clearly contingent and susceptible to change)

>>2870570
this except for the notion that borders are "outdated"

>>2870596
>Borders are seeming to strengthen as capitalism progresses
i think this is actually important to keep in mind. i believe that it is yet another clear signal that we no longer live in an "anarchy of production" and that politics and economics have come much more closer together. i dont think the resurgence of reactionary (?) nationalism we are seeing worldwide is an accident either. trade protectionism, imperialism, inter-imperialist conflict, capital as power, these things are all connected

>>2870601
i think the sentinelese partly became more aggressive when foreigners kidnapped some of them some generations ago. at any rate i dont think they were thinking in terms of the formalism of the borders of a nation as this would require wide awareness of the outside world and a plurality of other nations from which they can distinguish themselves from

>>2870857
also true. actually i think that the ruling class is perfectly fine with having illegal migrants. the problem is legalizing them as that would then necessitate paying them minimum wage. this is the quiet part of the immigration debate in america

The only thing open borders will result in is a global India

>>2870878
How is India different from other countries now?

>>2870857
idiotic sentiment. immigration cannot drive down aggregate wages. even if native wages fell, this would be compensated by a rise in non-native wages, with the result summing to zero.

meanwhile national borders enforce mass unemployment between countries. when there are no jobs in one US or Canadian state, people regularly move to another, but apparently a sacred line lies between the US and Canada across which no man may cross for work purposes without a permit (with the ludicrous effect that Canada has lower wages than the US, despite functionally not existing in many geographic respects. e.g. a huge amount of intra-Canadian trade flows through the US instead of staying internally, the US-canada border is not "visible from space" because it has no real geographic basis, and so on.)

>>2870884
>immigration cannot drive down aggregate wages
this is incredibly dumb, what do you think happens when you increase the reserve army of labor
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1
read marx

There really is no benefit to importing unskilled labor into the country

We should kill workers until there is no more reserve so we can have more leverage when we bargain with our masters

>>2870884
do you mean that the wages are more than they would be in their native countries so technically their wages rise ?
Because in the EU there is the detached workers policy so you pay them based on their original country wage/taxes,don't think the porkoids haven't thought about it first

>>2870895
Bubonic plague advocate

>>2870887
immigration doesn't increase the reserve army of labour, immigrants increase demand for labour at the same time as they increase its supply, meaning you do not wind up with a surplus / unemployment / reserve.
quite famously, the massive influx of cubans to miami in the 1980s had no effect on unemployment rates despite increasing the Miami labour force by 7% overnight.
you cannot escape what happens in the real world by going "read Capital", and insofar as you can: perhaps you should read it more carefully. :^)

>>2870896
broadly. as far as i know the EU policy applies only to social security and taxes, not to wages themselves. e.g. a Pole in Germany is paid German wages, but pays into the Polish pension and tax system.
fundamentally: people would not emigrate if it would make them worse off (barring the relatively rare cases where they're scammed.)

>>2870943
none of that is true, you have 1 data point of a small amount of people no where close to what is occurring now
read capital

>>2871017
So this means we will have so many wages after the bubonic plague woker bros

>>2871017
i have many data points.
australia has gained 11 million people since 1990 (63% growth) while wages have grown by 15%. america also saw 15-20% wage growth with population growth of 38%. canda's real-terms wages are up 20-24% and its population is up 50%, from 27.7 million to 40.5 million.
japan's population has dropped 3.91% from peak and its wages peaked in real terms in 1997, now stagnant. italy's population has dropped 3% from peak and real wages are down 3-4% since 1990.

>>2841524
The Global Migration Crisis is purely a result of the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System that has created widespread Poverty/Inequality/Starvation combined with Genocidal Imperialist Wars launched by the U$ and the Zionist State throughout the Periphery/Semi-Periphery countries that has caused millions of people from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Eastern Europe, and East Asia to flee their homes and try to get to the Imperial Core (ie. The U$ and Western Europe), where they are used by the Bourgeoisie for both cheap labor and as a convenient scapegoat/bogeyman to divide the Proletariat in order to elect Fascists like Trump who will gut the Social Safety Net and eventually declare Martial Law and permanently suspend Bourgeois Liberal Democracy, so their is no way to truly solve this problem as long as the Global Capitalist-Imperialist System exists, but once the World Maoist PPW (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 for 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 it is possible to end Mass Immigration and ensure Ethnic Homogeneity in your country in a Humane and Progressive way, by embracing the Immortal Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Highest Stage of Marxism, and start traveling on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️💇‍♀️👩‍🦲!

>>2871085
The first problem is correlation is not causation and cross-country comparisons that don't control for other variables are not serious evidence. Australia, the United States, and Canada share flexible labor markets, low regulatory barriers to business, similar property rights and resource endowments that drive growth independently of immigration policy.

Japan and Italy have more regulation with aging populations. Japan has a central bank that spent decades trying and failing to generate inflation. The Anglo economies grew for reasons unrelated to immigration, and immigration followed the growth rather than causing it.

>>2872635
>bourgeois economists are right that "flexible labour markets" ultimately drive wage growth
>bourgeois economists are right that low regulatory barriers ultimately drive wage growth
>bourgeois economists are right that strong property rights ultimately drive wage growth
<but they're wrong to say that immigration has no effect on wages, you guys.
where do we find these people

>>2870878
India is like 18th century europe lmao

One of the things I hate the most about Capitalism is Globohomo. Every city in Europe you go now it's the same shit, High streets filled with yank slop, turkish barbershops, indian and pakistanis blasting around on ebikes and scooters and basically no natives or legitimate local culture.
Zoomers are completely cosmopolitian, honestly in terms of culture 8/10 things, the average British zoomer, is no different from a French Zoomer, no different from a German Zoomer, no different from a Canadian Zoomer, no different from an American zoomer.
American Capitalism won and everything is globally homogenized into a farce imitation of America, just like how British Empire built British colonial quarters of British architecture, British Norms, British Fashion, but the American colonial quarter is literally everywhere and completely internalized mentally by the colonized.
I don't want Globohomo, I think an aim of Socialism should be to make say, Africa so fucking good, Africans don't WANT to leave. I don't see why everyone needs to give up their culture, lifestyle, and civic norms, to the lowest common denominator.

>>2872763
>amerikkka is responsible for the delicious indian naans and cool turkish haircuts
God bless the usa

the point of the borders is not to keep the mexicans out physically, but to keep you in psychologically. border enforcement is just political theater. anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows that no human force could possibly prevent millions of people from stepping over a 2000 mile long imaginary line in the sand year after year. the border enforcement is a demonstration, a very expensive and elaborate and cruel performance to make you the "citizen" believe that you are, in fact, a citizen and that you belong to a nation and are part of a national identity and that your government is working hard on your behalf to protect you from outside invaders.

did it ever occur to you how oddly transparent all the cruelty is? the expansion of ICE into a paramilitary organization, the huge outdoor detainment facilities visible to the entire world, the constant media bombardment of families locked in cages and armies of masked thugs with body armor and assault weapons and humvees and tanks and drones, billions of dollars worth of state of the art military hardware just to deal with some poor starving unarmed civilians? it's all just theater, it is nationalist virtue-signaling designed to rally the people who support it and demoralize those who oppose it. they know that the american people are broken and powerless, they have no fear of revolutions or protests or civil unrest anymore, so now they are pulling out all the stops and laying it down as thick as they possibly can so that this becomes the new normal.

>>2872763
>Zoomers are completely cosmopolitian, honestly in terms of culture 8/10 things, the average British zoomer, is no different from a French Zoomer, no different from a German Zoomer, no different from a Canadian Zoomer, no different from an American zoomer.
Nationalism dying and the cockroaches are crying lmao. Kys as soon as possible.

>>2872763
>I don't see why everyone needs to give up their culture
Culture relativism is cancer. What some rigthists call "european culture" to refer to women rights and "free speech" is actually the product of a just assault against the upper classes and their "european culture". Scientific medicine isn't "western medicine", it was born out of killing "western medicine". By mass proretarization, the capitalists create the conditions for the fall of their nation-states that they use to protect capital. Workers burned mosques in Iran and people here screamed about Israel and Mossad, ignoring that the death of nationalism and religion is inevitable.

>>2872763
>Zoomers are completely cosmopolitian, honestly in terms of culture 8/10 things, the average British zoomer, is no different from a French Zoomer, no different from a German Zoomer, no different from a Canadian Zoomer, no different from an American zoomer.
>Zoomers are historically progressive and will unify the international proletariat
Based

>>2872683

do you have an argument or are you just religiously devoted to mass immigration? not very materialist

>>2872794
<supporting globalist capitalism in opposition to nationalism.
you'd support hitler because he opposed the kaiser

>>2873193
>supporting globalist capitalism in opposition to nationalism.
Basic marxist position lmao

Nationalists can't bear the thought of different cultures not being the product of blood but of people being too far away to talk to each other for long periods. And now that communication is near instant, culture is getting "homo". They cry as the thought of a teen in Kenya listening to the same songs as a teen in Denmark. Actual mindless beasts is the only thing nationalists are. Grow up lil bro.

>>2873216
Then why are people talking about Imperialism then ? If the global bourgeoisie good then let them conquer the world first, rendering borders and nationalism to dust

>>2841524
absolutely ridiculous, spoken like a true commodity

>>2873216
ok hitlerite

>>2873225
yeah its a pretty obvious degradation

>>2873186
the case which needs to be demonstrated is that mass immigration is harmful, not that it is helpful. you cannot just take for granted that mass immigration is bad and then go "prove me wrong, kids. prove me wrong!"
when someone on a would-be leftist website is citing bourgeois econ as cope to handwave away a consensus viewpoint of bourgeois econ, you know they're up a blind alley working back from a conclusion rather than forward from evidence.

>>2873394
Like I said, mass migration has always been a tool by the ruling class to bolster the reserve army of labor and drive down wages, this is basic Marxism how are you this illiterate?

>>2873435
you are returning to an assertion made without evidence, papered over with "Marx said" as though that settles it, as though you were quoting the bible and not a dead economist you're merely pretending to have read.

>>2873435
Ok, abolish the ruling class, wage labor and commodity production. But you want to kill people like the mindless beast you are.

>>2873501 everyone wants to kill they don't because of the bourgeois institutions forced onto them.

>>2873501
Abolishing commodity production has never happened tho, it's like saying go swim to jupiter
And also that's applicable to every person living in any country (including the third world who is under daddy USA thumb so they're free from responsibilities, as if the USA isn't subjugating even their "allies" or their own population)

Tho I will agree that not having mass migrants in your country doesn't necessarily create more solidarity and class consciousness, just look at all the second world which have very low numbers of immigrant (or maybe it's the US again?)

>>2873478
So are you going to counter Marx's position on the reserve army of labor then?

>>2841524
You are being idealistic. The state arises as a consequence of the irreconcilability of social classes within a class-based society. The state will only wither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat has abolished private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes within a socialist state; after all contradictions of bourgeois law—such as the divide between town and country—have been eliminated; and once there is discipline among workers and an abundance of consumer goods, allowing for distribution according to the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Furthermore, do not forget that global socialist hegemony and the abolition of money are required, and the contradictions inherent in the division of labor must be resolved, for full communism to be achieved.

As long as the dictatorship of the proletariat exists, there will be planning regarding population movement to combat agents of capitalist imperialism and to minimize the conflict between town and country. The dictatorship of the proletariat reserves the right to employ revolutionary terror and to suppress counter-revolutionaries, opportunists, revisionists, or anyone who denies the supremacy of the proletarian class—the ruling class entitled to use force to socialize the economy, punish its enemies, abolish social classes, and plan economic activity.

Clinging to the idealism you display leaves you susceptible to opportunism—an attitude that denies the need for the proletariat, organized as a class, to combat the owning classes. The abolition of nationalities is a distant prospect; your duty is to organize for the communist cause in your own country, in solidarity with workers worldwide, so that the proletarian class may attain political supremacy. Subsequently, the task of global class warfare remains, aiming to secure global socialist hegemony so that the peoples of all nations may enjoy equal, fraternal relations. Do not let sentimental idealism and bourgeois individualism cloud your duty as a communist.

It is worth remembering that granting repressive powers to the bourgeois state is unacceptable—as it hinders communists from seizing power to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat—for anyone who might harbor illusions about the bourgeois state, which will invariably use such repression against communists and workers who organize.

>>2873526
>Abolishing commodity production has never happened tho
Not an argument
>>2873520
Proyection

>>2870887
>>2873549
>>2873435
>>2870857
Marx’s position is not that immigration drives down wages; rather, as he wrote in *Value, Price and Profit*, while there is a tendency for wages to fall due to capitalist control of the means of production, raising workers' wages affects only the capitalists' surplus value. Employment is not a scarce resource created by capitalists; instead, the value of commodities is created by the workers' labor power. When workers receive higher wages, their consumption stimulates the economy to produce more, countering the suppression of wages by capitalists. This wage increase depends on class struggle and the organization of all workers acting in solidarity with one another—not on the repression or abandonment of fellow workers.

A worker whose labor and civil rights are not defended—such as in cases of conditions analogous to slavery—undermines other workers; failing to defend their rights normalizes the intensified exploitation of others through lower wages. The solution lies in providing compensation to the most exploited workers, fostering unions and other worker organizations, and standing in solidarity to defend the legal rights of these exploited individuals—including immigrants. This must be accompanied by aggressive unionization and the consistent punishment of capitalists—without exception—to ensure they cannot profit from the intensified exploitation of any worker.

To understand the Marxist position, one must look at the issue of Irish and English workers; Marx wrote about the English chauvinism exploited by the bourgeoisie to prevent workers from organizing against the capitalist class.

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 York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Remembering 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

Now, 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 Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Let'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 Communism

https://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 Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Now 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: III

https://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 Programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm

From 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.

>>2873607
You haven't read Capital. In Chapter 25 Marx literall calls the Irish migrants "the light infantry of capital, thrown by it, according to its needs, now to this point, now to that." He says that they are "a flying column of pestilence" who carry disease into every place they camp, and describes how they are packed into the worst housing, undercutting the conditions of the settled English working class. The mechanism is laid out: capital uses this mobile, desperate population as a weapon against organized labor.

And in his letters he writes:
<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
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

quite simply mass immigration has always been a tool used by the ruling class against the proletariat

>>2873651
The English worker who hates the Irish immigrant worker is the one acting as a tool of the capitalists—which is exactly what you are doing now, given that Marx spoke of Irish immigrants being "useful idiots" for the bourgeoisie.

So you are wrong; in the very quote from the letter "Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt in New York," he calls for organizing immigrant workers together and in solidarity. Which proves I am right once again.

>>2873676
>>2873676
>The English worker who hates the Irish immigrant worker is the one acting as a tool of the capitalists—which is exactly what you are doing now
baseless accusations when presented with the fact that Marx clearly states that immigration is a tool used by the ruling class against the proletariat

So I'm right again
>Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt in New York," he calls for organizing immigrant workers together and in solidarity
not once does he say this

>>2873700
Let's see the quote that proves my point:

<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.
[…]
<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 York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Here you can see that viewing the immigrant worker as a competitor is what leads you to be a useful idiot of the bourgeoisie instead of organizing together with immigrant workers to compensate for this exploitation and punish the capitalist who intensified the exploitation.

Now let's look again at what distinguishes communists compared to other workers' 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 Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Again, I am proven correct with citations and you are wrong without any citations, and yet you are trying to lick the boots of the bourgeois state instead of showing solidarity with the workers of the world to prepare for the revolutionary situation and overthrow the bourgeois state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>2873744
>showing solidarity with the workers of the world
That sounds boring and complicated, what if we killed the irish with bubonic plague instead

>>2873744
yes you're correct in saying
<Here you can see that viewing the immigrant worker as a competitor is what leads you to be a useful idiot of the bourgeoisie instead of organizing together with immigrant workers to compensate for this exploitation and punish the capitalist who intensified the exploitation.

but no where does he suggest to continue Irish immigration in the same of "working together"

you are once again reading your own liberal politics into Marx

I do not believe that Marx set down the be-all and end-all of positions on every specific detail of every specific issue 150 years ago. He was not Jesus Christ and he was not delivering the gospel.

You would not unless you're a real kool-aid drinking 1970s Japanese Marxist reject any mathematical innovation after 1883 on the basis that St. Marx was (naturally) unaware of it, nor set the clock even further back and insist that his is the last word on calculus. "Marx said", "Marx said", "Marx said" is the cry of someone too cowardly to stick up for his own analysis and to defend his worldview on its own merits. Marx said: It is impossible to pursue this nonsense any further. , Marx said: If you have nothing to say, say nothing!, Marx said: What do you think…?

>>2873785
doesn't counter anything thats been said

>>2872797
>Zoomers are historically progressive and will unify the international proletariat
We are more divided than ever what are you talking about? We can barely even unionize without ego getting involved and going to social media to find the right brand that fits us. If you think that is unifying the international proletariat you are dead wrong

>>2873803
You're retarded ♡

>>2873836
at least you admit you're retarded

>>2873763
Wrong again. Marx says to organize Irish immigrant workers in the United States in the very letter I quoted.

<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 York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Here you can see Marx clearly recommending organizing in a coalition with Irish immigrant workers and those of other nationalities.

Let's look at an example of a program to fight for immigrant wages in the very political program that Marx helped write for the bourgeois election in France, which was written after the publication of Capital Volume I and after the Paris Commune, which goes against what you are saying:

<A. Political Section
[…]
<4. Abolition of standing armies and the general arming of the people;
<5. The Commune to be master of its administration and its police.

<B. Economic Section

<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;
<5. Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
<6. Scientific and professional instruction of all children, with their maintenance the responsibility of society, represented by the state and the Commune;
<7. Responsibility of society for the old and the disabled;

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Tell me, if Marx is against immigrant workers, then why is he advocating for their wages to be the same as native French workers? Why is he advocating for the abolition of standing armies of the bourgeois state if this is necessary to repress immigrants?

>>2873844
>Wrong again. Marx says to organize Irish immigrant workers in the United States in the very letter I quoted.
funny because he never says that. He just described what is happening in the US.
>Here you can see Marx clearly recommending organizing in a coalition with Irish immigrant workers and those of other nationalities.
at no point does he "recommend" anything. Are you an ESL you can't tell the difference between something that is descriptive and prescriptive?

>>2841524 (OP)
>No human is illegal unless they’ve committed a crime
<It is now illegal to express support for Iran in Britain
Tony Blair's neoliberal regime is now being given control over Palestine, the most rigorously policed AI cyber-dystopia. Really puts a nice narrative flourish on his NWO-esque obsession with state-mandated ID cards to track humanity:
<An ultimately doomed plan for compulsory ID cards was backed by Tony Blair two decades ago despite senior colleagues warning the scheme was a potential “disaster” that would draw comparisons with “Big Brother”, according to newly released official documents.
https://www.ft.com/content/d94c5f67-ccd1-4231-9235-bf30fc8ac958?syn-25a6b1a6=1
and of course:
https://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/2025-09-08-blairs-id-cards-failed-in-the-2000s-could-starmers-version-fare-better

>>2843676
>peak liberal idealist nonsense. Read a book.
The Club of Rome who wrote that "Limits to Growth" book was doing neoliberal Jeffrey Epstein class neo-Malthusian ideology years before his friends did

>>2873651
>You haven't read Capital…quite simply…has always been
Dialectical materialism? No I'm just a twitter guy who posts epic quote screenshots taken from reddit posts

>>2873849
You remain wrong. Marx wrote this letter, and the two collaborators in the United States, Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, organized immigrant workers in coalition with natives. This is the intention of the letter that you are hiding. The antagonism against immigrants is what maintained the control of the English aristocracy in Ireland, acting in conjunction with the interests of the English bourgeoisie, fueling prejudices of English workers against Irish workers. This is the same thing you are doing now.

You don't realize that Marx is only describing the wrong view of the worker who blames the immigrant, and this individual would be the useful idiot who keeps the bourgeoisie able to easily exploit other workers more intensely. The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier itself proves what I wrote, having nothing written against immigrant workers, but rather defending the labor rights of these immigrants, proving again that you are wrong as a liberal who has no interest in abolishing the repression of the bourgeois state in order to arm the workers and implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Again I repeat the quote that you ignore that Marx is obviously defending immigrant workers:

<A. Political Section
[…]
<4. Abolition of standing armies and the general arming of the people;
<5. The Commune to be master of its administration and its police.

<B. Economic Section
[…]
<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;
<5. Equal pay for equal work, for workers of both sexes;
[…]
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

The left wants vulnerable PoC to move to racist sexist Western states where they'll be oppressed and hate crimed.

>>2870587
True. If you trespass into a hunter-gatherer's territory they don't ask for your papers, they just riddle you with arrows.

>>2873874
>You remain wrong
Nope this is you
>Marx wrote this letter, and the two collaborators in the United States, Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, organized immigrant workers in coalition with natives
No. The German immigrant workers organizing alongside Irish workers and native-born Americans never materialized in any meaningful way. You remain wrong

>>2873887
But this is what Marx suggested to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, and you were pretending that this wasn't the letter's intent. The fact that they failed to organize workers in the United States doesn't change Marx's position: that immigrant and native-born workers should organize to fight together. This contradicts the view—which you keep repeating without citing any sources—that immigrant workers are competitors and enemies of native-born workers. Therefore, you are wrong; you are neither a scientific socialist, a Marxist, nor a communist, but rather, in all likelihood, some resentful individual from the imperialist core—co-opted by the bourgeoisie as a "useful idiot" destined to be discarded. I am not from the imperialist core, nor do I live in the First World, so there is no point in trying to hurl insults at me; it will have absolutely no effect.

>>2873893
>But this is what Marx suggested to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
no this is what Marx describes is occurring in the US, no where does he said it ought to occur he is stating what is occurring.
>that immigrant and native-born workers should organize to fight together
except he never said that. Therefore, you are wrong
>I am not from the imperialist core, nor do I live in the First World
this explains your confusion with the English text.

>>2873887
>No. The German immigrant workers organizing alongside Irish workers and native-born Americans never materialized in any meaningful way. You remain wrong

Even if that is true anon is right in that the foreign/ native dichotomy is a false one, and the necessity for workers to organize across false distinctions like racial ones was proven by the experience of labor organizers like Foster, regardless of whether this was accomplished in the past or not, you obstinate, reactionary dipshit ♡

>>2873911
its not a racial distinction but the very real border distinction, cope harder

>>2873913
Lmao, pathetic ♡

>>2873916
glad it makes you seethe liberal :^)

>>2873901
>no this is what Marx describes is occurring in the US, no where does he said it ought to occur he is stating what is occurring.
You are confusing what Marx wrote. He is comparing the conditions of Irish workers in England and the need for collective organization between English and Irish workers against the chauvinistic illusion that landlords who own land in Ireland and English capitalists use to divide workers, fueling prejudices of English workers against Irish workers.

In the text, Marx is encouraging proletarian internationalism among workers in the United States, including Irish workers, to organize together. He is also encouraging solidarity between workers in England and workers in the United States.

Proletarian internationalism is necessary for the emancipation of workers to advance a communist revolution. This is possible according to Marx's quotes, which do not change if you look at other texts of his.

>except he never said that. Therefore, you are wrong

Marx's texts, from the beginning, are not separate from the obligation to have an internationalist position of fighting for the rights of workers worldwide, including immigrants. Let's look at quotes that prove you wrong and me right again.

You can see that the labor movement in the United States can only better organize the working day with the end of the slavery relationship that exploited black workers that existed in the Republic:

<In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours’ agitation, that ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, 1867, Chapter Ten: The Working-Day, Section 7: The Struggle for the normal working-day. Re-action of the english factory acts on other countries

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S7

You can see in Marx's critique of the Gotha Programme, in Lassalle's criticism, the need for socialist internationalism to exist within the workers' party and not to abandon internationalism with workers of other nationalities:

<5. "The working class strives for its emancipation first of all within the framework of the present-day national states, conscious that the necessary result of its efforts, which are common to the workers of all civilized countries, will be the international brotherhood of peoples."

<Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this – and that after the work of the International!

<It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

<And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" – a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie – which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries – and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

<In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.

<The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

<Bismarck's Norddeutsche was absolutely right when it announced, to the satisfaction of its master, that the German Workers' party had sworn off internationalism in the new program.

<Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter I

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Have you forgotten what Marx refers to 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.
[…]
<The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

<The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

<National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

<The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

<In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

<Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels ,1848 Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

At the Lausanne Congress of the International Working Men’s Association you can see the defense of internationalism in the text itself talking about immigration and outsourcing. I see nothing in asking for managing immigration nationally to ban or limit immigrant workers:

<The power of the human individual has disappeared before the power of capital, in the factory the worker is now nothing but a cog in the machine. In order to recover his individuality, the worker has had to unite together with others and create associations to defend his wages and his life. Until today these associations had remained purely local, while the power of capital, thanks to new industrial inventions, is increasing day by day; furthermore in many cases national associations have become powerless: a study of the struggle waged by the English working class reveals that, in order to oppose their workers, the employers either bring in workers from abroad or else transfer manufacture to countries where there is a cheap labour force. Given this state of affairs, if the working class wishes to continue its struggle with some chance of success, the national organisations must become international.

<International Workingmen’s Association 1867, On The Lausanne Congress

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/lausanne-call.htm

All these texts are coherent with each other, blaming immigrant workers as enemies goes against what Marx wrote.

>>2874466
>the need for collective organization between English and Irish workers
no you're just reading your own liberalism into this.
>In the text, Marx is encouraging proletarian internationalism among workers in the United States
he never does. He is describing what is possibly occuring in the US not prescribing.
> He is also encouraging solidarity between workers in England and workers in the United States.
again he never states this.
>Marx's texts, from the beginning, are not separate from the obligation to have an internationalist position of fighting for the rights of workers worldwide, including immigrants. Let's look at quotes that prove you wrong and me right again.
this does not equate to: bring in countless foregin people into different countries.

>>2874587
>this does not equate to: bring in countless foregin people into different countries
Yep cause the workingmen have no countries so they can go wherever

>>2874591
AES disagrees

>>2874597
no such thing

>>2874587
>no you're just reading your own liberalism into this.
You remain wrong. From the very beginning, with Marx and Engels, communists sought to organize immigrant workers and those of other nationalities—even when trade unions in various countries were indifferent to this or had succumbed to national chauvinism.

>he never does. He is describing what is possibly occuring in the US not prescribing.
Wrong. Marx's various writings bring to the reader the class interest that the world's workers have in one another, regardless of nationalities. To not see this is to lack class consciousness, because proletarian internationalism is intrinsic to scientific socialism and is necessary to carry out a communist revolution.

>again he never states this.
He always wrote this, or do you think he abandoned what he wrote in the Communist Manifesto, or that Marx was part of the First International that defended internationalism, or that he criticized Lassalle for conciliating with his own bourgeois nation? He did all this while writing in his own electoral program in France that foreign workers should receive the same salary as native French workers, while in all the programs he wrote he called for the abolition of the standing armies of bourgeois states, including the police, so that the popular workers' militias could establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Let's see this by following what was written about the Paris Commune:

Now let's take what Engels wrote which was never opposed by Marx all his life against the manuscripts he was writing and they both constantly wrote letters to each other so don't give me some excuse that Marx or Engels were hiding information from each other:

<The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.
[…]
<The second distinguishing characteristic is the institution of a public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power. This special public force is needed because a self-acting armed organization of the people has become impossible since their cleavage into classes. The slaves also belong to the population: as against the 365,000 slaves, the 90,000 Athenian citizens constitute only a privileged class. The people’s army of the Athenian democracy confronted the slaves as an aristocratic public force, and kept them in check; but to keep the citizens in check as well, a police-force was needed, as described above. This public force exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men, but also of material appendages, prisons and coercive institutions of all kinds, of which gentile society knew nothing. It may be very insignificant, practically negligible, in societies with still undeveloped class antagonisms and living in remote areas, as at times and in places in the United States of America. But it becomes stronger in proportion as the class antagonisms within the state become sharper and as adjoining states grow larger and more populous. It is enough to look at Europe today, where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have brought the public power to a pitch that it threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state itself.
[…]
The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong – into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

<Frederick Engels, 1884, "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State", Chapter IX. Barbarism and Civilization

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

From this it is already clear that it is intolerable to give any power of repression to the bourgeois state without exception so that the workers can overthrow the bourgeois state and install the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>this does not equate to: bring in countless foregin people into different countries.
You are wrong again. Any control or repressive power of the bourgeois state is intolerable and will be an obstacle to workers organizing and being guided by communists to overthrow the bourgeois state and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. There will be any immigrants, yes, because any surveillance and repression in a bourgeois state will prevent communists of various nationalities from organizing to overthrow the bourgeois state. You forgot the right of association, and any method the capitalist has to silence immigrant workers in order to exploit them more intensely must be prevented. This can only be done by defending the labor and civil rights of immigrant workers, compensating them, along with all workers' organizations, for all days and hours not paid by capitalists, and punishing these capitalists in various ways so that they cannot profit from the intensified exploitation of these immigrant workers.

You can easily look at examples in peripheral countries—like the one where I live—where, from time to time, landowners are exposed for exploiting migrant farm laborers. These workers get trapped in conditions akin to slavery, held in debt bondage on the land and exploited through the control of their consumption, housing, and transport—taking advantage of their isolation. The solution isn't to persecute or use violence against these migrant laborers who move from place to place in the countryside; rather, it is to fight for their rights and punish the capitalists. By defending the most intensely exploited worker, you are also defending your own rights and the wages of all workers by refusing to normalize this extreme form of exploitation used to produce goods for the market. Remember, the struggle for wages depends on class struggle—with workers fighting in solidarity with one another, rather than buying into the fantasy that another worker is an enemy competitor.

The example I gave of rural labor exploitation akin to slavery can involve either locals from the poorest, most remote regions or immigrants, but the solution remains the same. Of course, the ultimate solution would be social equality achieved by abolishing private property, the anarchy of production, and social classes; however, a communist revolution cannot tolerate granting repressive power to the bourgeois state—a lesson you can see by following the example of the Bolsheviks and Lenin.

You still haven't posted a single quote from Marx or Engels tolerating or encouraging the bourgeois state to block worker immigration; this simply looks like reactionary resentment stemming from your lack of class consciousness.

>>2874597
Interestingly, you're talking about Actually Existing Socialism, which are dictatorships of the proletariat that have socialized the economy. This means I can give you quotes from Lenin explaining why you can't give repressive power to the bourgeois state, and this includes repressing immigrants, in order to achieve the communist revolution.

Now let's look at Lenin's quotes for those who claim like you that 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: III

https://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) 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.
[…]
<To safeguard the working class from physical and moral deterioration, and develop its ability to carry on the struggle for emancipation, the Party demands:
[…]
<8) Full social insurance of workers:

<a) for all forms of wage-labour;

<b) for all forms of disablement, namely, sickness, injury, infirmity, old age, occupational disease, child-birth, widowhood, orphanhood, and also unemployment, etc.

<c) all insurance institutions to be administered entirely by the insured themselves;

<d) the cost of insurance to be borne by the capitalists;

<e) free medical and medicinal aid under the control of self-governing sick benefit societies, the management bodies of which are to be elected by the workers.
[…]
<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 Programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm

It is interesting that Lenin wrote this—it is an important point that must be made in imperialist capitalist countries (which likely includes where you live): granting equal rights to foreign and native-born workers. Yet you continue to ignore this, even though it is intrinsic to Marxism-Leninism—which is no different from scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong again.

>>2875018
>You remain wrong. From the very beginning, with Marx and Engels, communists sought to organize immigrant workers and those of other nationalities—even when trade unions in various countries were indifferent to this or had succumbed to national chauvinism.
this is not identical to supporting mass immigration and you're ignoring the context we're speaking of. Again in the letter he is simple describing what is occuring not prescribing. You're wrong.
>Wrong. Marx's various writings bring to the reader the class interest that the world's workers have in one another, regardless of nationalities. To not see this is to lack class consciousness, because proletarian internationalism is intrinsic to scientific socialism and is necessary to carry out a communist revolution
wrong. this is just you reading your own liberalism into Marx, "class interest that the world's workers" does not automatically equate to mass migration. Thats just you being a liberal.
>He always wrote this, or do you think he abandoned what he wrote in the Communist Manifesto, or that Marx was part of the First International that defended internationalism, or that he criticized Lassalle for conciliating with his own bourgeois nation
again you're just assuming "internationalism" means mass migration, couldn't be furtherest from the truth

>>2875051
>you have to respect the heckin bourgeois laws about imaginary map lines or you're a liberal
not convincing. Me I think third world workers should be able to go where they please and great replace the herrenvolk if they want, the bourgeois should be imprisoned and not free to move however

>>2875065
Marx and AES disagree you're just a liberal larping as a communist(and getting third worldism wrong)

>>2875065
boarders exist in material reality

>>2875051
You are wrong again; if Marx is not calling for the bourgeois state to repress immigrant workers, then logically mass immigration will occur. Any attempt by the bourgeois state to control workers or hinder the movement of communists would be opposed by communists—and by your own logic, that implies supporting mass immigration. I have yet to see you post a single quote from Marx or Engels citing an exception where power is granted to the bourgeois state. Where is the evidence that they opposed mass immigration, given that both understood the state to be an instrument used by one class to oppress another? Internationalism means refusing to conciliate with the bourgeoisie of one's own country, and the bourgeoisie will attract immigrants regardless, simply because it controls the means of production.
You remain wrong, and I remain correct according to the Marxist writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin: as communists, we cannot grant the bourgeois state any power of repression, because our goal is to lead the workers in overthrowing that state and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
All communists in the First International—including Marx and Engels—were persecuted by bourgeois states and lived as immigrants in various countries while organizing communists and workers. The situation was no different for the Bolsheviks. Any attempt to control immigration—as you propose by granting power to the bourgeois state—would hinder communists from organizing internationally and thus violate the principle of communist internationalism.
Communists were already organizing immigrant workers long before the conciliatory reformists even cared about the issue.

>>2875078
>if Marx is not calling for the bourgeois state to repress immigrant workers, then logically mass immigration will occur.
ok prove it your entire point hinges on this unfounded assertion. One which Marx never stated and is not found as policy in any socialist state ever.
>Any attempt by the bourgeois state to control workers or hinder the movement of communists would be opposed by communists
Not found anywhere in Marx.
>I have yet to see you post a single quote from Marx or Engels citing an exception where power is granted to the bourgeois state
the same logic can be applied to the bourgeois state lax immigration policy designed to drive down wages.
>Where is the evidence that they opposed mass immigration, given that both understood the state to be an instrument used by one class to oppress another?
Where is the evidence that they supported mass immigration, given that both understood the state to be an instrument used by one class to oppress another? As Marx clearly explained that the bourgeois state used immigration against the English working class, clearly not a lot of support for what you're suggesting.
>You remain wrong, and I remain correct according to the Marxist writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin
Again no where did any of them suggest mass immigration and Lenin certainly did not try and bring large amounts of Africa or the Middle East into Russia, you're so hilariously wrong.
>All communists in the First International—including Marx and Engels—were persecuted by bourgeois states and lived as immigrants in various countries while organizing communists and workers
mistaking the one for the many, common fallacy.

>>2875072
You're the one defending the bourgeois status quo my liberal in christ

>>2875085
The USSR did massive population transfers which is mass migration

>>2875077
Yes everyone is aware.

>>2875072
So you're responding to this other person that Marx and the Bolsheviks were in favor of giving the bourgeois state the power to repress immigration. Where is your proof with citations? You're just a reactionary liberal with no class consciousness who is resentful and doesn't want the proletariat to organize into a party independent of the bourgeoisie, it seems to me.

Let's see then what Marx and Engels' position is on the participation of communists in a bourgeois election:

<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.

<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm

<Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it, and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.

<We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.

<The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press — those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the exiting state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognise the prevailing order.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Apropos Of Working-Class Political Action".

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm

My position is not third worldism from what you can obviously tell by reading.

>>2875087
lax immigration policy is bourgeois status quo liberal

>>2875093
domestic migration and immigration from the third world are two different things. the USSR did not bring in huge amounts of people from Africa or the Middle East which is what you're suggesting

>>2875100
ironically does not counter anything I said

>>2875103
no it isn't. high numbers do not a lax immigration policy make.
(e.g. as has been noted, Australia has nearly doubled in size since 1990, but getting an Australian residence visa remains quite difficult.)

>>2875105
there is no fundamental difference between domestic and international migration. only an idiot could believe that someone moving from inverness to edinburgh is good and proletarian and does not suppress wages in edinburgh but that moving from edinburgh to dublin is bad and bourgeois and suppresses dubliner wages. (and this is before we ask: if adding more workers increases labour supply without increasing demand, as if by magic, is having children acting as a handpuppet of the bourgeoisie?)

both the USSR and china controlled internal immigration. i do not believe this to be the correct policy, but it is at least consistent. (china, incidentally, has been liberalising over time.) the only justification for an inconsistent approach is, ironically, being mindbroken by bourgeois spooks.

>>2875018
Just want you to know you're based and I appreciate you fighting the good fight itt

>>2875189
>is having children acting as a handpuppet of the bourgeoisie?
There was this thought a century ago or so actually among some socialist and feminist women to do birth strikes and gain leverage on the bourgeoisie. Of course the "leftists" who are so much against mass migration don't like it because of how can they secure the future of their race and nation then

Being asshurt about "mass immigration" hurting wages or whatever is pretty retarded given that the internet has pretty much made it so that workers are in direct competition with each other regardless of which side of the border you're on. My wages aren't depressed because my neighbor is a refugee from the Congo. My wages are depressed because my fucking government has been working with my employer to fight wage increases tooth and nail for the past 20 years.

>>2875198
let's compromise: everyone who replies in this ugly, asinine, line-by-line "gotcha" style instead of engaging with a post holistically should be deported to the middle of the sahara desert.

>>2875199
sorry but increasing the reserve army of labor does in fact depress wages

>>2875085
>ok prove it your entire point hinges on this unfounded assertion. One which Marx never stated and is not found as policy in any socialist state ever.
Wrong again. You are the one harboring prejudice against immigrant workers and insinuating this. My position is consistent with all the texts Marx and Engels wrote—which do not view the immigrant worker as an enemy; therefore, the question of whether or not to support mass immigration is irrelevant. So far, you haven't provided a single quote consistent with everything Marx wrote and organized within the First International. Therefore, I am correct again, and it seems to me you aren't even a communist.

>Not found anywhere in Marx.
Once one reaches the conclusion that the state is an instrument of oppression by one class against another—and that it is necessary to smash this state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, while maintaining an internationalist stance to fight for the emancipation of all workers and achieve the supremacy of the proletarian class—then this becomes the inevitable conclusion.

Let’s look at a practical example from Marx again, in "The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier":

<Considering,

<That the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race;

<That the producers can be free only when they are in possession of the means of production [NB];

<That there are only two forms under which the means of production can belong to them

<The individual form which has never existed in a general state and which is increasingly eliminated by industrial progress;
<The collective form the material and intellectual elements of which are constituted by the very development of capitalist society;
<Considering,

<That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;

<That a such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation;

<The French socialist workers, in adopting as the aim of their efforts the political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class and the return to community of all the means of production, have decided, as a means of organization and struggle, to enter the elections with the following immediate demands:

<A. Political Section[NB2]

<1. Abolition of all laws over the press, meetings and associations and above all the law against the International Working Men's Association. Removal of the livret, [6] that administrative control over the working class, and of all the articles of the Code [7] establishing the inferiority of the worker in relation to the boss, and of woman in relation to man;
[…]
<B. Economic Section
[…]
<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;
[…]
<Editorial Notes
<6. The 'livret' was a certificate which a worker was legally obliged to present when taking up a new job, confirming that his debts and obligations to his previous employer had been discharged. The practice was finally abolished in 1890.

<7. The Code Napoleon, the French law.

<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

Interestingly, this program calls for the abolition of all laws on meetings and associations including the certificate which a worker was legally obliged to present when taking up a new job and which maintains administrative control of the bourgeois state over the working class. Again, where in the text is any attempt to punish foreign workers and repress them by giving power to the bourgeois state? It is literally in the text forcing capitalists to pay foreign workers the same as French natives, there is nothing written about deportation or cutting off the rights of immigrant workers.

>the same logic can be applied to the bourgeois state lax immigration policy designed to drive down wages.
Wrong again. If you don't organize immigrant workers and fight in solidarity for their rights, you will only make it easier for the capitalist to coerce you into intensifying the exploitation of immigrant workers. In this case, the decrease in wages will be similar to if I don't fight for the rights of day laborers trapped in slave-like labor, as in the countries where I live. Wage increases depend on class struggle. Not having solidarity with other workers, including immigrants, only means a defeat for the workers and a victory for the capitalist.

By fighting for immigrant workers to have equal rights, you are attacking the capitalist's profit and the bourgeoisie's ability to exploit workers. The bourgeoisie could outsource or close the hypothetical factory, but there are several solutions to this. The first option is to occupy this unused factory as a cooperative, nationalize it, or take advantage of it to encourage a state-owned factory to compete against other private companies. Don't forget that it's also good to have coordination in defending communists and workers in other countries, following the internationalist principle.

>Where is the evidence that they supported mass immigration, given that both understood the state to be an instrument used by one class to oppress another? As Marx clearly explained that the bourgeois state used immigration against the English working class, clearly not a lot of support for what you're suggesting.
Wrong again. In the text, he clearly writes about the control of English landlords in Ireland in collusion with English capitalists, which causes wages to decrease while English workers blame Irish workers instead of acting in solidarity with them. Marx positioned himself against the English proletariat allying with the English bourgeoisie and aristocracy, and sided with the Irish workers so that Ireland could develop more independently, becoming a free federation of equals instead of a subjugated, marginalized people hated by false prejudices used to deceive English workers.

Let's look at quotes that demonstrate this position of Marx:

<Nevertheless, both my utterance on this Irish amnesty question and my further proposal in the General Council to discuss the attitude of the English working class to Ireland and to pass resolutions on it have of course other objects besides that of speaking out loudly and decidedly for the oppressed Irish against their oppressors.

<I have become more and more convinced—and it is only a question of driving this conviction home to the English working class — that it can never do anything decisive here in England until it separates its policy with regard to Ireland most definitely from the policy of the ruling classes, until it not only makes common cause with the Irish but even takes the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801 and replacing it by a free federal relationship. And this must be done, not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland but as a demand made in the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain tied to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because it will have to join with them in a common front against Ireland. Every one of its movements in England itself is crippled by the strife with the Irish, who form a very important section of the working class in England. The primary condition of emancipation here—the overthrow of the English landed oligarchy—remains impossible because its position here cannot be stormed so long as it maintains its strongly entrenched outposts in Ireland. But, once affairs are in the hands of the Irish people itself, once it is made its own legislator and ruler, once it becomes autonomous, the abolition there of the landed aristocracy (to a large extent the same persons as the English landlords) will be infinitely easier than here, because in Ireland it is not merely a simple economic question but at the same time a national question, for the landlords there are not, like those in England, the traditional dignitaries and representatives of the nation, but its mortally hated oppressors. And not only does England’s internal social development remain crippled by her present relations with Ireland; but also her foreign policy, and in particular her policy with regard to Russia and the United States of America.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1869, Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_11_29-abs.htm

Marx does not see Irish immigrants as enemies in any of the texts, and he advocates giving land and personal property to the Irish, directly attacking the English aristocracy so that the Irish can form an equal, egalitarian socialist federation in the future.

Did you overlook this part of the quote?

<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.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt
In New York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Here you can see that the English worker views himself as part of the "ruling nation" and the Irish worker as a competitor, becoming "a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself." This is exactly what you are doing by acting as a "useful idiot" who claims to oppose immigration while viewing the immigrant worker as an enemy. As Marx notes, the Irish worker sees the English worker as "both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland."

You are acting the same way now. In the text, Marx does not suggest this can be resolved within England itself; rather, he advocates for solidarity with Ireland's economic sovereignty—enabling agrarian reform and the development of its own industry—so that it might eventually form a socialist federation with England.

Let’s look at another text where Marx writes about this:

<The question now is, what advice shall we give to the English workers? In my opinion they must make the repeal of the Union (in short, the affair of 1783, but in a more democratic form and adapted to the conditions of the present time) an article of their pronunziamento . This is the only legal and therefore only possible form of Irish emancipation which can be embodied in the programme of an English party. Experience must show later whether the merely personal union can continue to subsist between the two countries. I half think it can if it takes place in time.

<What the Irish need is:

<1) Self-government and independence from England.

<2) An agrarian revolution. With the best intentions in the world the English cannot accomplish this for them, but they can give them the legal means of accomplishing it for themselves.

<3) Protective tariffs against England. Between 1783 and 1801 all branches of Irish industry flourished. The Union, by abolishing the protective tariffs established by the Irish Parliament, destroyed all industrial life in Ireland. The bit of linen industry Is no compensation whatever. The Union of 1801 had just the same effect on Irish industry as the measures for the suppression of the Irish woollen industry, etc., taken by the English Parliament under Anne, George II, and others. Once the Irish are independent, necessity will turn them into protectionists, as it did Canada, Australia, etc.

<Marx-Engels Correspondence 1867, Letter from Marx to Engels In Manchester

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_30-abs.htm

>Again no where did any of them suggest mass immigration and Lenin certainly did not try and bring large amounts of Africa or the Middle East into Russia, you're so hilariously wrong.

Both Marx, Engels and Lenin did not defend any law to prevent immigration of workers, nor did they prioritize race, sex or nationality in all the political programs they organized in the bourgeois state. Preventing Muslims and Africans from immigrating means giving power to the bourgeois state that is not found in any of their texts. I would say that *you* are the one who hasn't cited anything yet, whereas I have refuted everything you’ve written so far.

You still mistake the state for a neutral entity rather than an instrument used by one class to oppress another; a socialist state planning the economy—or a dictatorship of the proletariat socializing its economy for planning—is different from a bourgeois state where communists and the proletariat have not yet assumed power.

>mistaking the one for the many, common fallacy.
A fallacy of what kind? Both the First International—of which Marx was a member, having taken part in the provisional general council's inaugural meeting—and the Third International held an internationalist position, fighting for the rights of all workers, including immigrant workers.

Let’s look at a quote from so-called "Eastern Marxism"—since you speak so angrily against "Western Marxism"—and see what the Third International said at its fourth congress:

<In view of the threatening danger, the Communist parties of the imperialist countries – the United States, Japan, Britain, Australia, and Canada – are obliged not to limit themselves to propaganda against the war but also to make every effort to eliminate the factors that disorganise the workers’ movement in these countries and make it easier for the capitalists to utilise national and race antagonisms. These factors are the questions of immigration and of cheap Coloured labour.

<The chief method of recruiting Coloured workers today on the sugar plantations in the southern Pacific today is the contract system, which brings in workers from China and India. This fact has led workers of the imperialist countries to demand the passing of laws against immigration and against Coloured labour, both in the United States and in Australia. These laws deepen the antagonism between Coloured and white workers, fragmenting and weakening unity of the workers’ movement.

<The Communist parties of the United States, Canada, and Australia must wage a vigorous campaign against laws that restrict immigration, and explain to the proletarian masses of these countries that they too will suffer harm because of the race hatred stirred up by these laws.

<The capitalists oppose such anti-immigration laws because they favour free importation of cheap Coloured labour as a means of driving down the wages of white workers. There is only one way to successfully counter the capitalists’ intention to go over to the offensive: the immigrant workers must be admitted into the existing trade unions of white workers. At the same time, the demand must be raised that the wages of Coloured workers be brought up to same level as white workers’ pay. Such a step by the Communist parties will expose the capitalists’ intentions and also demonstrate clearly to the Coloured workers that the international proletariat does not harbour any racial prejudice.

<To carry out these steps, the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat in the countries of the Pacific must convene a Pacific conference to work out correct policies and determine the appropriate organisational steps for an effective unification of the proletariat of all races in the Pacific.

<Fourth Congress of the Communist International - Resolutions 1922, Theses on the Eastern Question

https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/thesis-on-eastern-question.htm

Here you can see that the Third International does not see so-called immigrants as enemies; their own solution is to fight for the rights of colored labor because abandoning and repressing other workers, leaving them voiceless and without rights, is what will truly lower wages because you are not fighting for their rights.

>>2875205
>Wrong again. You are the one harboring prejudice against immigrant workers and insinuating this
ok prove it, all you're doing is crying that Marx doesn't support mass migration.
>My position is consistent with all the texts Marx and Engels wrote—which do not view the immigrant worker as an enemy; therefore, the question of whether or not to support mass immigration is irrelevant
then you're just changing the subject because we're discussing the system of immigration not the immigrants themselves.
> So far, you haven't provided a single quote consistent with everything Marx wrote and organized within the First International. Therefore, I am correct again, and it seems to me you aren't even a communist.
already did initially you were confused over the prescription/description nature of the letters.
>Wrong again. If you don't organize immigrant workers and fight in solidarity for their rights
again what is being discussed is the policy of mass migration not who and who not to organize.
>Both Marx, Engels and Lenin did not defend any law to prevent immigration of workers
other then the laws that preventing immigration in the USSR. Both Marx, Engels and Lenin did not support any law to encourage mass immigration of workers either.

>>2875204
You're just racist.

>>2875205
Based Marx knower

>>2875204
even if this was true, increasing immigration does not generally increase the reserve army of labour. there is no correlation between immigration rates and unemployment/underemployment rates. in a case where unemployment remains constant or falls while immigration increases, you're not growing a "reserve" army of labour, you're just growing an army of labour!

(and it is also untrue that unemployment must suppress wages. it is not uncommon to have a situation where average wages and unemployment rise concurrently.)

>>2875213
>immigration does not generally increase the reserve army of labour. there is no correlation between immigration rates and unemployment/underemployment rates
you are retarded and don't understand what the reserve army of labor even is if you're going to conflate it with unemployment/underemployment

>>2875214
how convenient that you do not offer any definitions to back up your point since that might oblige you to make an actual argument instead of just throwing insults because you're on the back foot.
how inconvenient that everyone reading the thread can see what you're doing.

>>2875214
You are a racist retard

>>2875217
you think the reserve army of labor = unemployment/underemployment. This is the equivalent of not understanding gravity in a physics class

>>2875233
Shut up liberal

>>2875234
you're so mad lmao

>>2875233
>>2875235
You have been debateraped by a Marxist and now you're back to racist feels? There's a solution for that, put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, (it will increase the wages for the rest of us)

>>2875243
debateraped by a guy who thinks the reserve army of labor = unemployment/underemployment

ahahahahaha

>>2875245
Debateraped so hard you can't stop replying

>>2875232
for the practical purpose of our discussion, as regards a modern economy, that is so. it is equivalent to saying that g = 10 m/s^2 in an engineering class.

>>2875245
wrong person + you're now on 3 posts of going "haha you don't know what the reserve army of labour is (and i'm not going to facilitate discussion by giving my definition :^))) )" as though you think anyone reading is naive enough to fall for your sophistry.

>>2875246
maybe he just wants to build up the reserve army of (you)s.

>>2875246
you are my reply guy

>>2875248
>for the practical purpose of our discussion, as regards a modern economy, that is so. it is equivalent to saying that g = 10 m/s^2 in an engineering class.
now you're just trying to save face.
>wrong person + you're now on 3 posts of going "haha you don't know what the reserve army of labour is (and i'm not going to facilitate discussion by giving my definition :^))) )" as though you think anyone reading is naive enough to fall for your sophistry.
quite pathetic to not understand reserve army of labour

>>2875252
Humiliation ritual

>>2875256
i guess you're pretty humiliated aren't you

>>2875207
>ok prove it, all you're doing is crying that Marx doesn't support mass migration.
I just proved that Marx did not advocate for repressing Irish immigrants; people who oppose mass immigration—like you—interpret that stance as supporting mass immigration. You are the one who needs to prove where—and in which program throughout his life—Marx advocated cutting off or preventing immigration by empowering the bourgeois state to repress immigrants. So far, you haven't cited anything; you simply focus on the text where Marx describes the English worker's mistaken view of the Irish immigrant as a hostile competitor. In that same text, Marx writes that by opposing the Irish immigrant worker, the English worker becomes a tool of the English bourgeoisie and aristocracy, thereby strengthening the ruling classes against the English workers themselves.

If Marx wrote nothing demanding the repression of immigrants, then the bourgeoisie will bring in and incentivize immigrant workers, and coerce them. If you argue that this must be stopped—or that it constitutes an "emergency" justifying state power to repress and deport immigrants—then that is the conclusion you reach. However, Marx clearly sided with Irish workers in his texts. If you claim this means opposing English workers, it is only because you believe the lie that views immigrant workers as enemies; it is solely due to your own prejudices that you perceive Marx as supporting mass immigration.

Marx places no importance on what is shared with—or merely feigned to be shared with—the ruling classes. He clearly sides with the Irish worker against the English aristocracy and bourgeoisie, and he advocated for English workers to adopt this same position without ever supporting any anti-immigrant laws.

>then you're just changing the subject because we're discussing the system of immigration not the immigrants themselves.

Marx clearly wrote that English workers can do nothing other than grant Irish workers the right to liberate themselves from their own subjugation by English capitalists and aristocrats. This puts an end to any discussion about an immigration system; in his writings, Marx himself advocates for abolishing employment certificates in France. Therefore, Marx would oppose any immigration system you could imagine, since he refuses to grant the bourgeois state any power of repression whatsoever.

>already did initially you were confused over the prescription/description nature of the letters.
Wrong again. You are confusing the text where Marx writes the following:
"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."
Here, he is literally stating that the English worker who views the Irish immigrant worker as a competitor lowering his standard of living is mistaken; in doing so, he becomes—as the text says—"becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself". The Irish worker then—as the text says—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."

Marx clearly views you as a "stupid tool" of the bourgeoisie.

>again what is being discussed is the policy of mass migration not who and who not to organize.
And the position, as Marx states, is that English workers have no political recourse within England other than to defend these exploited workers of other nationalities. This runs counter to any immigration system you might wish to propose.

>other then the laws that preventing immigration in the USSR. Both Marx, Engels and Lenin did not support any law to encourage mass immigration of workers either.
Show proof of these laws. You haven't shown anything. Organizing a socialist state and planning its resources is not the same as how to organize within a bourgeois state; the communist position is one of solidarity with workers worldwide for the emancipation of all workers. You didn't provide a single quote, so I am right and you are wrong—as always, the liberal resentful of immigrant workers has no source to cite.

>>2875307
>I just proved that Marx did not advocate for repressing Irish immigrants
again you're trying to change the topic from the system of immigration to the individual immigrants themselves. What Marx says about the Irish immigrants has nothing to do with the system of immigration, which Marx clearly states is used against the proletariat.
>Marx clearly wrote that English workers can do nothing other than grant Irish workers the right to liberate themselves from their own subjugation by English capitalists and aristocrats
and somehow in your liberal mind this translate to mass immigration, something Marx never suggested.
>Marx clearly views you as a "stupid tool" of the bourgeoisie.
this would be you for supporting the lowered standard of life through immigration.
>And the position, as Marx states, is that English workers have no political recourse within England other than to defend these exploited workers of other nationalities. This runs counter to any immigration system you might wish to propose.
again no where is this a support of mass migration, you're once again reading liberalism into Marx.(USER ALREADY BANNED)

>>2875316
You just keep pretending like the argument is about "mass migration" when really what you've been advocating for all along is the idea that foreign born workers are the enemy of native born workers which has been repeatedly debunked.

You're nothing but a racist reactionary.

>>2875319
i guess you've given up

>>2875322
Strawman 0 - 1 (you)

What do my fellow Comrades think about my In-Depth Dialectical Materialist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line on the Global Migration Crisis at >>2871452 , ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🚀☢️💇‍♀️👩‍🦲🤔?

>>2875323
your concession is accepted

>>2875316
>>2875322
Are you really naive enough to think anyone in the thread is falling for this? For all your bluster it's obvious to anyone reading that you've been routed and run out of arguments. While the people you're arguing with keep presenting new ideas, illustrating their points in new ways, and engaging you on the rare new points you raise, you keep falling back to the same cliches without actually engaging with their arguments at all.

Even if we granted you a blank cheque and said that Marx was indeed anti-immigration, you've never made a convincing argument relating to the facts on the ground. e.g. you've never demonstrated that Marx was correct, or that Marx continues to be correct in modern circumstances. You rely on the reader taking this as read, but your posts are otherwise so lazy and repetitive that they can only undermine this case.
If Marx was anti-immigration, and if he was correct to be so, and if his reasoning continues to be correct today, it would be trivial to illustrate this with real world examples. The absence of such examples paired with a lot of insults, namedropping, and accusations of not understanding Marx without any attempt to explain him "correctly", only serves to make clear that you cannot actually make your case, that you are more likely than not starting with a conclusion and lazily, desperately, working backwards from it.

If not naivite, why are you bothering? Is copy-and-pasting "You're reading your liberalism into Marx" over and over again actually entertaining you? If you're not going to engage in good faith, do you not at the very least feel some compulsion to say something new? Or, if repetition is your game, why not embrace it fully with the pretended confidence of a 1:1 copy and paste: "ok kid", "ok kid", "ok kid"

If you're trying to drag it out until you get the last word, you should cut your losses now.

>>2875335
you write a lot but say very little and have made no argument at all beyond complaining that Marx might be actually against immigration.
Do you have an argument or are you just going to read liberalism into Marx?

>>2875405
My argument is as follows: At no level have you made your case, nor are you going to make your case in the future. This conversation is nothing but an exercise in amusing casual readers of the thread by calling you out for desperately trying to get the last word after being hopelessly outclassed, as though that would constitute a "win".

You evidently struggle with reading comprehension when it comes to my post, which makes it hard to imagine you've read Marx and harder still to imagine you've actually understood him. At no point did I "complain" that Marx might be against immigration, indeed I granted it for argument's sake to illustrate just how little of a case you've made. "What Marx said" is at-best a starting point for an analysis, not something you can offer up in lieu of one. (That you've also failed to make a convincing case that this is what Marx said, while others have made the opposing case far more forcefully, is just the icing on the cake.)

Your best option at this juncture is to reply "I accept your concession" and then run away so I have nothing to work with and you possibly wind up with the last word by default, but I do not expect you to take it. Your worst option is to shoehorn in the phrase "read[ing] liberalism into Marx" again, unless you're confident you can do it 3-4 more times without adding anything else so that the whole thing takes on a surrealist quality.

>>2875411
>At no level have you made your case
that isn't an argument. You're just upset at this point. Are you the same person who didn't understand what the reserve army of labor was?

>>2875437
It obviously is an argument, an argument I have established a strong case for, and an argument you have failed to rebut. I have no reason to be upset: the shorter your replies, the more obvious the paucity of your case, especially when you do something silly like dedicate more than half of their length to baseless accusations.

>>2875526
no you're again just throwing a tantrum, do you have a counter point to anything thats being said or are you just going to continue to whine about the subject?

>>2875316
>again no where is this a support of mass migration, you're once again reading liberalism into Marx.
Wrong again. In the text, it is the combination of landlord control in Ireland and capitalist exploitation without defending Irish workers, with English workers not organizing with Irish workers, that strengthens the bourgeoisie to intensify exploitation.

>and somehow in your liberal mind this translate to mass immigration, something Marx never suggested.
No. That's what it means in your mind. I don't care about that; my interest is in defending the labor and civil rights of all workers because that's the only way you make it harder for capitalists to profit, which intensifies the class struggle and builds solidarity to prepare for the revolutionary situation, in addition to defending equal wages for all workers so they can fight together, as is the duty of communists to do.

>this would be you for supporting the lowered standard of life through immigration
Wrong. In Marx's text, the English worker seeing the Irish worker as an enemy, thus diminishing his living conditions, is not considered correct by Marx. As in the text itself, the English worker "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." The very prejudices against the immigrant worker are what lower the standard of living because he is not organizing with the Irish workers. Have you forgotten what Marx wrote about how the worker sees the prejudiced worker who sees the immigrant as an enemy?

Here we will see the passage that describes you very well:

<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.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Funny how in this text he calls you a stupid tool, denying that he's on your side.

The English worker, who is the stupid tool like you are here, is not correct according to Marx here. So you are wrong.

>again no where is this a support of mass migration, you're once again reading liberalism into Marx.
You haven't yet proven Marx was against mass immigration. You're the one who has to show the proof. In the text discussing lowering the standard of living, Marx calls anyone who sees this a "stupid tool." In other texts discussing this issue, Marx says that he has nothing to do in England except side with the Irish workers and give them legal support, even though he would prefer to go against the English workers who identify with their nation, siding with the Irish instead of any national reconciliation in England against the Irish.

>>2876458
>with English workers not organizing with Irish workers, that strengthens the bourgeoisie to intensify exploitation.
funny how that isn't anywhere in the letter

>No. That's what it means in your mind. I don't care about that; my interest is in defending the labor and civil rights of all workers because that's the only way you make it harder for capitalists to profit, which intensifies the class struggle and builds solidarity to prepare for the revolutionary situation, in addition to defending equal wages for all workers so they can fight together, as is the duty of communists to do.
ok well you're ignoring Marxism in favor of your mass migration golden calf for some reason.

>the English worker seeing the Irish worker as an enemy, thus diminishing his living conditions
I don't think you can read English well, the letter clearly states that the English workers hate the Irish immigration for lowering the standard of living not that their opposition to the Irish worker lowers the standard of living.

you're just worshipping immigration for some reason

>You haven't yet proven Marx was against mass immigration
where did I say that? What was stated was that mass immigration is a tool used by the ruling class to suppress wages, which is stated by Marx

>>2876473
>funny how that isn't anywhere in the letter
Funny how it is actually in the letter:
<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.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Here again, you can see that the English worker becomes a tool of English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, strengthening those classes' domination over himself. Just as you are merely strengthening capitalists and aristocrats abroad—and their domination over *you*—do you realize that the text describes how the English worker *perceives* the situation, rather than how it actually is?

Immediately after this, Marx presents the Irish worker's perspective:

<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.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Why, then, are you ignoring this part, which shows that the Irishman views people like you as an accomplice and a stupid tool of the rulers? In the text itself, the Irishman is paying him back with interest, while you invent the idea that the immigrant is the problem, instead of fighting for these workers' rights.

>ok well you're ignoring Marxism in favor of your mass migration golden calf for some reason.
You who are ignoring Marx who doesn't care about this, in the Manifesto he even writes that communism will accelerate what you fear:

<National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

<The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

<Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels ,1848 Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

This does not change what Engels wrote that Marx never demonstrated his opposition to:

<22. What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

<The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.

<Frederick Engels 1847, The Principles of Communism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

So you are saying that Marx and Engels are wrong? Or are you going to invent that Marx is secretly against Engels without any proof?

<I have become more and more convinced—and it is only a question of driving this conviction home to the English working class — that it can never do anything decisive here in England until it separates its policy with regard to Ireland most definitely from the policy of the ruling classes, until it not only makes common cause with the Irish but even takes the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801 and replacing it by a free federal relationship. And this must be done, not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland but as a demand made in the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain tied to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because it will have to join with them in a common front against Ireland.

<Letters of Karl Marx 1869, Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_11_29-abs.htm

Once again, Marx disagrees with you; how can he speak of the English worker making common cause with the Irishman if that Irishman is the enemy?

>I don't think you can read English well, the letter clearly states that the English workers hate the Irish immigration for lowering the standard of living not that their opposition to the Irish worker lowers the standard of living.
>you're just worshipping immigration for some reason
Wrong again. How can Marx write that the English worker "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" if that's what you want? According to this, you are the tool of the aristocrats and capitalists. Here, the Irish worker "sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland."

You didn't say what this means because it describes you as an accomplice and the "stupid tool" of the rulers and the tool of the aristocrats and capitalists. In this passage, Marx describes what you are being now.

Right to movement is a neoliberal 'right'. I.e, a neoliberal structural necessity.
Under socialism, labour has no right to desert camp spontaneously and thus intentionally, willingly wreck the 5-year plan.

>>2876734
Nationalist retard lmao

human mobility has massively increased over time concurrent with technological development. the idea this tendency will suddenly be thrown into reverse under socialism is idiotic. a planning mechanism that cannot get people to choose to live in the necessary locations is by-definition a planning system that has failed and a society that will condemn people born in rural backwaters to remain there because it cannot and will not accommodate their desire to live in civilisation is a doomed society.
>b-but muh chinese internal movement restrictions
china's urbanisation rate has grown massively since the 1970s and the hukou system has gotten much weaker over time. direction of travel matters much more than absolute position. (e.g. internal movement in china is easier than ever, even if movement in china is more restrictive than in the west.)

>>2876762
neoliberal hippy woo ha yahoo retard

Let's ask the neoliberal queen what she thinks of open borders

>In 1968 Enoch Powell delivered his "Rivers of Blood" speech in which he strongly criticised Commonwealth immigration to the United Kingdom and the then-proposed Race Relations Bill. When Heath telephoned Thatcher to inform her that he would sack Powell from the Shadow Cabinet, she recalled that she "really thought that it was better to let things cool down for the present rather than heighten the crisis". She believed that his main points about Commonwealth immigration were correct and that the selected quotations from his speech had been taken out of context. In a 1991 interview for Today, Thatcher stated that she thought Powell had "made a valid argument, if in sometimes regrettable terms".

>In a July 1979 meeting with Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and Home Secretary William Whitelaw, Thatcher objected to the number of Asian immigrants, in the context of limiting the total of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000 over two years.

>Thatcher's stance on immigration in the late 1970s was perceived as part of a rising racist public discourse, which Martin Barker terms "new racism". In opposition, Thatcher believed that the National Front (NF) was winning over large numbers of Conservative voters with warnings against floods of immigrants. Her strategy was to undermine the NF narrative by acknowledging that many of their voters had serious concerns in need of addressing. In 1978 she criticised Labour's immigration policy to attract voters away from the NF to the Conservatives. Her rhetoric was followed by increased Conservative support at the expense of the NF. Critics on the left accused her of pandering to racism.

>>2876772
>hippy
Naionalist beasts feed on blood

Are white people allowed to migrate to poc majority countries and form large white enclaves in the city or would that be colonialism? Asking for a friend :)

>>2876786
False premise that people from Asia and Africa came willingly to Europe and weren't forcibly settled here by their colonial suzerain after Hitler almost wiped out all whites. Dutch brought Moroccan and Indonesian, French brought West African, Germans got Turkish labor power, and so on.

>>2876786
Yeah the sexpats and military people come to many african countries and make fortified cracker neighborhoods actually

>neoliberalism proven to support closed borders and racial discrimination policies
>anti immigration crowds immediately shifts to heil hitler rapejeet mudhuts
scratch a (neo)liberal…

>>2876816
yeah, you're worse.

>>2876824
You will never even be one hundredth the man Yahyah Sinwar was

>>2876831
Yahyah Sinwar stood for equal rights and justice, it’s Netanyahu and the Israelis that love hitler

Where did the "neoliberals love open borders" meme came from? Neolibs love armed borders that function as human traficking hubs for collecting non-citizen slaves.

>>2876840
neoliberal theory would endorse open borders, but actually existing neoliberalism is a different beast and enjoys the current persecutory nativist pandering of national borders.
if i am quite honest, i sympathise with a lot of neoliberal theory and regard it as having been failed by its practitioners.
e.g. much of the material base of Trumpism is people in regulated industries like car dealerships, soda bottling plant owners, etc, which should be deregulated and opened to market competition, but - as neoliberal public choice theory would predict - these people can lobby politicians to leave them alone while the beneficiaries of a more competitive car dealership/soda market cannot lobby you because they do not exist yet and consumer interests are too diffuse to lobby for it. Meanwhile, something like airline deregulation has succeeded at basically all of its original aims, and trade is - despite all the whining - basically a universal good. Actually-existing neoliberals compromised on all of these, e.g. Reagan and Thatcher also indulged a large degree of protectionism, Blair and Clinton pandered to all kinds of reactionary sentiments, and basically all of them got more worked up about tax cuts + fiscal rectitude than deregulation+trade, which are the actually valuable parts of the theory. Many modern problems could've been resolved or avoided if we had more neoliberalism-in-theory and less neoliberalism-as-actually-implemented.

this is of course the tragedy of all ideas. actually existing Keynesianism and "AES" were the same, a bastard form ultimately doomed to collapse by their own compromises. Not for nothing is China effectively a coherent synthesis of AES and AE-Neoliberalism.

>>2876840
>Where did the "neoliberals love open borders" meme came from? Neolibs love armed borders that function as human traficking hubs for collecting non-citizen slaves.
underrated trvke

>>2876547
>do you realize that the text describes how the English worker *perceives* the situation, rather than how it actually is?
he stopped replying because he realized you were right but was too proud to admit it

>>2876547
>Here again, you can see that the English worker becomes a tool of English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, strengthening those classes' domination over himself. Just as you are merely strengthening capitalists and aristocrats abroad—and their domination over *you*—do you realize that the text describes how the English worker *perceives* the situation, rather than how it actually is?
sure but Marx is also stating that immigrants lowers the standard of living.

>>2877374
samefag