How can communists and socialists appeal to the mainstream in a place like Missouri if they must advocate for...

How can communists and socialists appeal to the mainstream in a place like Missouri if they must advocate for redistributing resources to people from South America and Africa? Sure, confiscating farmland "property rights" from the rich fucks up in NYC and the like would help out Missourians if all else remained the same, but if you're simultaneously arguing for suddenly spending a great deal of effort feeding not the people of Missouri but other randoms they've never met how are they supposed to expect communism/socialism won't make their lives worse? Doesn't that make any "internationalist" variant of socialism doomed within the first world?

I'm sorry? Those places have plenty of resources of their own, they're currently occupied by the Bourgeoisie though.

yeah also confused by OP's premise

I won't argue that neocolonialism is cancer but you guys seem to go further beyond simply ceasing to intervene in foreign wars to allow bourgeoisie to keep their stolen shit. Why does Missouri have to open its borders and spread its wealth when it already is sparse as it is?

...

it doesn't. ignore the anarchists/liberals on this board.

OP, what the hell are you talking about?

Why was this not taught is shcools?

I would put these posters around my city if I had the resources to do so.

how much does it cost to print paper where you live?

Internationalist socialist movements just seem incoherent. Delaying the revolution until everyone can do it at the same time sounds really shitty if people in certain places are ready to be rid of the bourgeois parasites right now, but if states have to stand in international solidarity and show generosity before the revolution happens everywhere, that would lead to instant "bankruptcy" (bankrupt is a poor word since the banks are gone but "out of resources" is a close enough concept to "out of money" that I'm using the word) of the new state and would lead to communism not being appealing to its masses. The other option I guess is to go full Leninist and liberate the entire world at once but again that sounds hardly like a better life and option to the average working class person, not to mention that that's the same line of thinking the missionaries, neocons, and other deluded folks throughout history took.

Why not instead allow individual parts of the world, even from traditionally "rich" areas, to rise up and support themselves but simultaneously refrain from either exploiting or helping those from other parts of the world?

*Trotskyist

Paper that will last outside in the snow and rain is kind of expensive.

jesus christ no one is forcing missouri to do this
god bless this invisible box that's only been around for 100 years, let's treat it as sacred

You don't.There is no real difference between people towards the low end of the wealth distribution in rich countries trying to keep third-worlders from earning more money through immigration, and petty-bourg types towards the higher end trying to save money by begging for tax cuts.

Tell them about National Bolshevism

There’s a big difference between wage labor for profit and immigration.

In both cases, we have a person towards the wealthier end of the wealth distribution wielding the State apparatus to exclude the Other from a better life (even under the conditions of capitalism)

Hooooooooooooooly fuck read theory please

Wealth redistribution does not work. See the first chapter of this book (it's less than 100 pages overall) with Owen.

We don't want wealth redistribution it's a MEME.

folk music

sing to them 'this land is your land' with the communist verses


not needed, folks might need some mutual aid but they can mostly provide for themselves.

Good, so let's infiltrate right-wing parties and slash welfare and stop prolonging capitalism.

Welfare does not prolong capitalism it accelerates to full automation which is easy to turn into socialism.

Well, the short answer is we don't advocate redistribution to random-ass people who don't work or produce any value in the industry in question. That is, not until work and scarcity are both obsolete, and everyone can realistically enjoy the fruits of automated labor without needing to enter some drudgery themselves.
The core idea of socialism is that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow. No, this isn't some libertarian/propertarian talking point, because "ownership" does not entail a socially useful role in production. Labor creates all value, and workers should be entitled to the product of their own labor, unmolested by capital.

Wheat paste my friend.

you're retarded

I think most liberated communes would find it in their interest to support others given that, in the absence of world revolution, they would perish. If you think this is an impediment and no one would want this, then capitalism will slowly decay into a state of global oligarchic wars amidst destroyed ecosystems, mass starvation, and apocalyptic climate change. So my view is we should at least try.

please go back to Holla Forums

The socialist movements within these nations would redistribute their own resources. Now let's say that trade of resources was needed. That would be up to the syndicates of each nation/region to decide.

Who the fuck is going to go to Missouri? It's bumfuck nowhere, 36th out of 50 states by per capita GDP. Places that don't have shitloads of rich people aren't going to have a lot of resources to reallocate.

stopped reading there