There are bordercucks on Holla Forums

Castrate your penises and hang yourselves. None of you actually give a fuck about the working class. You're a bunch of slack jawed dipshits roleplaying as "socialist revolutionaries" for likes on facebook. Here's the part where you go "workers of the world unite" in between a mouthful of PoC feces while the actual working class of this country is further driven into the dirt by your ignorant stupid bullshit.

Why is ben garrison's name on that? also who fucking made that

Why do nazi's so often have anal fixations?

you seem upset my friend
fuck borders btw
fuck racialism to tbh

Pro-immigration is anti-union(thus anti-worker).

"Fuck borders" is equivalent to "fuck the lower class". Just do everyone a favor and snap your own neck.

kek, you are a faggot and I hope you get aids

...

You are most definitely the enemy of the workers, comrade.

MORE NEGRO SPERM

YEEEEEEEEES I NEEED IT

WASH AWAY MY WHITE DEVIL GENEEES

I LOVE BIG BLACK COCK
MORE IMMIGRANTS

Left wing nationalism ftw

yes, pretty much

This is why we are the only politically relevant faction in left these days.

When did bourgeois open borders ideology become the same thing as international proletarian solidarity?

Sweden YES

seek help

1991, when radical left lost it`s grasp on reality.

kys faggot

Oooooooooooooooookkkkkk

So how do we establish personal territory and property?

Or are we forced to share our domicile with the nearest drugged up idiot who will most likely kill you with a fork while whining and yelling why they closed down taco bell during the revolution?

pro-borders "leftists" are the worst at building international proletarian solidarity because they always want to blame things on the chinese and the mexicans etc instead of the bourgeoisie

socdems aren't on the left

...

...

top kek

because you sold out to the neoliberals, whore

...

What is important that those unions are democratic and are able to influence policies and conditions of labor.
Besides there is no such thing as horizontal organization.

Neoliberal infiltration could not be stopped once Keynesian economics lost their control over accademia in 1970`s.

Weapons are legal, but the ones going into Mexico are being used as weapons, not for self defense and recreation. Additionally, while I support Marijuana being legalised, Heroin and other hard drugs should still be illegal to produce, but holding them for personal use should only result in being referred for help with shaking addiction.

Ok so, we abolish the bored patrol and tear down border fence. Now what? What's your next step?

I'm just not seeing it m8, opening up or liberalizing borders just so obviously goes along with the neoliberal agenda of liberalizing trade and capital controls that Holla Forumsclaims to hate that you'd have to be clinically brain-dead not to draw the connection.

Is it really wrong for workers to question whether we need more immigration when the growth rate is slowing-down, wages are falling/stagnant and there isn't enough work to go around for the native population of workers?

A part of me wants to believe we'd all hold hands in a demonstration of workers unity but we can't even defeat divisive identity politics on this board let alone IRL. And something tells me just throwing open the floodgates on immigration would just make that shit even worse.

You're yelling at the wind m8

This board is ~90% disillusioned former liberals, they don't have a problem with globalism per se, they just think they can do it better. Oh, and muh accelerationism means that the more you fuck over the lower classes the more likely they are to institute a socialist state…somehow

It didn't.

Capitalists support immigration to increase the reserve labour pool, depress wages and create tension between workers on account of which side of an imaginary line they were born on.

Capitalsits make vaguely anti-immigration promises despite the fact that they love mass migration. But only when there are no regulations or safeguards. If all workers were unionised and a living wage was compulsory, along with full employment, immigration would plummet. Labour could win the fight over capital. Also let's be honest, people move because their home countries are ruined by profiteering and imperialism. Like Syria. The rich move because they can, the poor move because they have to.

At least that's how I see immigration and borders. I am against borders but if they are to be removed, it must be done under socialism.

Thoughts?

There's a sharp distinction between the globalism of transnational capitalism, and the brotherly globalism of socialism. The former is about abusing inequalities between nations, whether legal, economic, or cultural, to gain profit through abusive arbitrage, until everyone is eventually reduced to the lowest common denominator. The latter is about opening up and connecting nations that are on par with each other, raising lesser nations up to legal, economic, and cultural harmony with those presently more advanced.

Inside the 1st world, or the 3rd world, segregated into roughly similar bands of development and prosperity, I support open borders and free trade. Between those levels, however, immigration must be strongly restricted, and all trade must incorporate FairTrade countervailing duties, preferably subsidized as a foreign aid mechanism.

The "sharp distinction" is the distinction between the real world and Utopian fantasies

If the abolition of borders benefited capital then surely there would be no borders? I understand that opening the borders between certain countries might be advantageous to certain capitalists in certain circumstances, but the idea that the complete dissolution of all borders is a policy that would benefit the capitalist class seems obviously stupid.

I'm just here ironically.

Rome fell because of foreign invaders. They did not pillage or destroy, all they wanted was a good Roman life which they were deprived of. But they were unable to sustain the trade and logistics necessary to provide that good life, and so Rome was no more.

Hmm really fires the neurons. That isn't analogus to the current situation at all right?

What the fuck am I reading?

Yes they did, and Romans did the same lol

Right but this is a utopian expectation under capitalism. They didn't even achieve full-employment in Nazi Germany where they had a full-blown war economy and kapos standing over workers shoulders to keep them from asking for higher wages or even to convince them to take a pay pay cut.

This isn't a bad position. I think Stalin was right nations will probably only cease to exist during an advanced stage of communism and tbh they might not quit existing even then.

Ironically, in the past "free trade" was much closer to what we today call fair trade in its intention and popular conception (see Free Trade Nation by Frank Trentmann) believe it or not. Bernie Sanders suggested something similar to what you're proposing and there's talk in the BRICS block about doing "bottom up" globalization via south to south trade.

Capital mobility is actually superior to labor mobility, so as long as the freedom of capital to cross borders exists then it is plausible that they can tolerate borders as a limit that closes competition for labor in its home nation.

As it globalizes and profitability crises and deflationary interests of financial oligarchies makes toleration of rising wage levels at home impermissible then borders becomes another limit that capital cannot abide.

In the United States, there used to be more or less open borders between Europe, Canada, and Mexico because the US capitalists desperately needed new incomers to counter-act labor scarcity. It was only when the foreign-born proles started rebelling that the capitalists started to rethink their whole free-movement of labor strategy.

What exactly is wrong with border control? I can get that if Socialism or Communism was ever realised it would become increasingly unnecessary, as people would have little reason to emmigrate for economic reasons, and would lower to the point is was barely of any concern, but since we are still stuck under Capitalism you have to be pragmatic.

People fleeing economic hardship are going to head for the country that offers them the best deal, and a single country cannot cope with this load. Just look at Sweden, there are dead zones controlled by Muslim gangs that emergency services are unwilling to enter and the Police even released a statement saying they had surrendered total control of these areas to the gangs: youtube.com/watch?v=thXCb1VUBDg

These people are not willing to blend in or adapt to the culture of these countries, and they are being let in in such great numbers that they can create impenatrable ethnic ghettos that actively prevent them from doing so. Regardless of the fact that culture is a "muh spook" unmitigated immigration in a capitlast society is just going to further destroy regional cultures that are already being pushed into the cold by shallow capitlast consumer culture.

Sustainable levels of immigration are good, but full open borders is retarded.

imagine if we could remove the conditions that incentivize mass migration

crazy i know

we comin' for those == toothbrushes ==

Dengism is a cancer, fam

Supporting borders and their existence is an implicit acceptance of private property.

This

Open borders is fine in an open borders world where your own workers have free movement. That's the ideal stateless society. However, in a capitalist world where other countries have borders and your workers don't have free movement abroad, subjecting them to unchecked inflow of immigrants is abusive.

Massa detected :v)

You can't blame people for being scared of/unaccustomed to the idea of no states, when they've lived their entire life being fed pro-nation state propaganda

It's your job to educate them, not berate them. I beloved in you, comrade

for shame comr8s

Start with yourself, OP - adopt several ISIS members, whoops, I mean, refugees to live in your house.

The Internet will spell doom for nationalism, but will grow it at first. But borders and the internet do not coexist.

Jeff Foxworthy tier delivery

Internationalism/open borders crap is inherintly imperialistic and also anti-workers.
Its bad for native workers but it also hurts the countries the migrants come from.
only porky gains from it.

That's one of many reasons to oppose Capitalism, not it's vice versa. Everything is contradictory at this point when it comes to borders. International communication for basically fun is all but a normality, and will continue to become one.

But open borders threaten workers within a nation's "native" population. I mean, even then it seriously depends on the work force itself.

It just doesn't add up, nationalism is last gasps in the form it is now.

Any argument that open borders is abusive to the working class is inherently dehumanizing to the immigrants, as though whatever benefit they get out of immigration is irrelevant.

The proletariat cannot resist the bourgeoisie collectively so long as they are divided by race and nationality.

I swear, some of the people here browse Holla Forums too much.

A) no it doesn't, they send back money to feed their families
B) countries are a spook

This is mind-boggling. How are you supposed to get people on board by telling them that you support what is effectively a transfer program from them to their boss out of compassion for third-worlders? Free trade is a transfer program in the same way. The State will accommodate both without ending capitalism, so I can't see what this is supposed to accomplish in the short term.

haha

...

We need to hold hands and realize people from the third world, a term coined during the Cold War, are in fact, not victims of Capitalism, but my mom & dad are

Oh no, you're flooded with the working class. They stink so much I hate it

practical for porky maybe

...

You act like this benefits Porky immeasurably. It doesn't. They're more likely in fact, to share your ideas.

Yeah those lazy fucking hispanic immigrants that have tended your agriculture for the past 30+ years you've been trying to get rid of for the past 30+ years are really actually not the working class and a bunch of leeching welfare queens

I'm not a welfare queen though, I just have a hispanic maid

Hence the need for socialism first

As I see it, borders are one of the concepts that are supposed to become obsolete after the revolution. But right now we live in the reality of a capitalist society, so just yelling "no borders" may be the pure idealistic way, but it's not pragmatic and won't help anybody. Leftists shouldn't lobby for mass-immigration, they should lobby to better the situation of the worldwide proletariat to make these mass-movements of immigrants obsolete.

And yes, people may not like to hear it, but next to third world proles (who will get exploited by local capitalists and used to depress wages) there are genuine opportunists, who want to get taken care of by the liberal welfare state, and reactonaries, who will be anything but supportive of the socialist cause, among immigrants from the middle-east.

Welfare accounts for so little of the budget it's outstanding that anyone still considers it a budgetary problem. Medicare and Social Security count for that, but you won't yell at your mother for being a verminous whore who relies on the state.

Real welfare queens are at the top, their antics will just get worse as the years go by. We're seeing this as it happens.

There is a difference betwen immigration in america and europe. Im speaking from a european persective.
many middle easten immigrants either live on welfare or work pretty much useless meme jobs that don't contribute to anything and only exists to give the illusion they don't live on gibs.

Nice strawman. Ever heared of unionbreakers? Organizing the working class takes time, and its nearly impossible if the working class that come here will do anything to stay because their place at home is even more shit, which means the native working class, which is me, the people in my movement, the people in my geographical area, who make up the already weakened socialist movement, will have to work in even more deplorable conditions and compete for even lower wages while the bourgeoisie gets to keep more of their money.

Lots of immigrants already work for less then legal wage, but this will be even more if you allow more competition between the workers.

But sure, keep supporting your idea. I will blame you when we're both against the wall for being communists, when the neo-nazis take over due to overwhelming support by the already poor working class who feel like they are being attacked and fucked over (and they are) by whoever is promoting this chaos, which will be blamed on "left wing".

give it a fucking rest m8

Focus less on the victims of Imperialism and focus more on the Imperialism that brought them to become victimized in the first the place. We make more war for more money, and you should be more outraged by that fact, and yet you revolve your politics on nationalism.

Nobody is happier at that then the people at the top of the food chain.

Blaming immigrants for trying to become the working class from a region in which first world nations deposed of is fucking stupid. The fact is they were working class, and now there is no work, and they have nowhere to go.

Unless you suggest mass homelessness, I would be blaming Capitalism and not focusing on demographic and identity politics.

i am anti-imperialist but my country isn't the one starting war it isn't peven part of nato. yet we have to take in a huge amount

Anfems yet again show they are mentally deficient

It isn't about who's responsible, it's about the fact that there are people responsible. Mass homelessness isn't a blame game, and these people are the working class. Throwing the victims of the west's wars into bare minimum shelter and then blaming them for their own migratory existence when all shops, all factories, all stores, and all farms, and all industry have been bombed, is unreasonable.

I'm sorry I don't agree with the hug box that victims are the problem. Not the result.

Besides which nationalism hardly stops porky, it just emboldens him to try something else out another way that's conniving.

You don't win in this scenario, that's just the fact. Blame Reagan and Bush Senior. Blame colonialism and the very fact the term Third World was created at all.

I'm not blaming them, im blaming the bourgoiesie.

But just because some germans grandfather killed jews doesnt mean his grandson has to be put on trial. I did not commit these crimes and I should not have to suffer from the consequences that neither I, not any of my ancestors, had anything to do with, just because we were and are ruled by people who commit these crimes.

Americans dont deserve to be killed over the wars in the middle east, so why woudl i have to be punished for something out of my control?

There is no fucking work here either, we have fucking 15% unemployment, yet somehow you think we can give all these people a job?!

Also, not american, so dont project your shitty government on mine.

What the fuck do you want us to do, huh? Give them all a nice fucking house while we ourselves can barely afford to buy new shoes until we have holes in them? Because that is what's happening. The native working class is taxed through their nose and the immigrants get better houses and more stuff than most of the lower rung of our own working class have.

Okay, but what about all the welfare and bailouts given to corporations and banks?

This is an odd analogy. I never claimed to put you on trial.

This isn't individualism, I'm talking about the consequences of the fact we have to use the defense spent in the EU and US. And it is a tremendous amount of money.

You would rather believe you are the working class for working a cash register than the one plowing the fields of some part of Syria, or working in industry there. When that industry now is gone and non existent, where else do they go? Where else can the working class go?

This is as much your fault as mine, and I never suggested this is any one person's fault, but the fault of Late Capitalism itself. When war is for profit, this is the outcome, nobody should have been surprised.

Unemployment is vast, but unemployment in Syria is totality.

What do you want them to do? Become homeless? You're so quick to throw the working class under the buss if it means that your wage is lowered. However this is as much Abdul's fault as it is John's fault. There is a clear cause, but no answer.

The fact is Capitalism has brought you here, not the refugees.

Refugees are another porky scapegoat to blame all our problems on, and invest voters into their own schemes, make them more nationalistic and conservative.

Make them more easy to vote for the party who wants more war, to spend on defense, and bring in more refugees when their industry, commercial, and agricultural economy has been bathed in fire.

There is nobody winning in a war you've been numbed to, and a war you are used to.

As I said before, what did you think would happen when Bush Jr announced two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? They'd just stay when everything is gone?

the working class has no country

also no, the workers aren't expected to impoverish themselves. in Europe alone there's 11 million empty homes

Yes they do when other countries of the world keep them out.

...

socialistreview.org.uk/312/immigration-do-immigrants-lower-wages

You realize every refugee in the (by global standards) gold-plated overpriced luxury of 1st-world nations like Europe means condemning many more to suffering or death who could be supported for the same expense in their home nation or its neighbors, while also keeping them closer to familiar cultures, and better able to help change and rebuild their home, right? Every cent wasted "helping" refugees in Europe is stolen from the mouths of the global poor, you hipster retard:
cid.org.nz/news/how-the-refugee-crisis-is-hurting-foreign-aid/

Have you ever been in a war? None of us have.

But we know from anyone who has been in a war, that when your entire infrastructure has been bombed to shit and everything is occupied by a disgusting militant force to make Immortan Joe blush

That isn't your home anymore, try as you might to restore it.

And the fact is the West isn't doing any sort of aid there to restore it, possibly to incentivize people like you to care more about the Other from such a scenario, to justify class hatred and more war, which brings in more refugees etc

It isn't as black and white as you make it.

You can keep repeating meaningless words all you want, the reality on the ground is that they are not only stuck in their countries of birth, most don't even have enough resources to relocate 100 miles away from their place of birth.

Baka

It absolutely is that black and white. Hosting refugees costs money, whether directly in the form of transportation and welfare, or indirectly in the form of increased pressure on the labor market and infrastructure.

If that money is spent rebuilding wartorn nations and subsidizing (geographically, culturally, and economically) closer nations to host refugees, it will do FAR more good, both for refugees in the short term, and for their entire region (and our own regions) in the long term.

I'm a humanitarian, because I actually care about helping people. You're a shallow hipster, because your heart is set aflutter by visions of dewy-eyed refugees on your doorstep, licking your boots in gratitude, while the overwhelming majority who will never be able to leave their homes are mercifully obscured by your virtue-signalling ego.

Except that it isnt when the bourgoiesie actively devide them based on their language and move them around, never giving them a chance to properly organise.

I suppose it is black and white that multiple wars in such a small scale of ten to 15 years, wars that just don't stop that the west profits from and needs; creates an enormous amount of refugees.

I suppose in that respect, war causing refugees of war is a black and white result.

Weapon systems cost a hell of a lot more. You frequently forget, for every military the project the west makes, they can house every homeless man woman and child documented. I'm talking in the US specifically.

The number is in the billion range, and yet we've spent $1.5 trillion to Lockhead Martin for the F-35 disaster.

It's cognitive dissonance.

There's more money spent on creating refugees then there is money accommodating them. And for good reason, for them. They want a new Other to justify continued ongoing war, so they make this process as hard as possible.

No, I'm being realistic. You are not being realistic. Forcing a set number of people escaping a war zone into homelessness is not a realistic solution to the problem.

The realistic solution is blaming the actual refugee creating machine that is the military industrial complex

Well fucking good for you, you lead-infected burger. But meanwhile we don't spend nearly as much on defence and we have to foot the bill for all the refugees YOUR country caused, while YOU only took in one thousand refugees.

Use your right to bare arms and fucking kill yourself, you delusional fuck. My sardine can of a nation is crowded enough as it is, we don't need another 2 millions extra.

...

Also, different countries have different laws, ensuring that some nations will be eternally squalid baby-factories spewing desperate slave out of meatgrinder conditions, while others are juicy targets waiting for porky to rescind every single concession generations of socdem political activism has won.

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? If so, can you oppose the causes of global strife, while also mitigating the attempts by its perpetrators to use their victims as human weapons against each other?

We have to stop the wars, but we also have to ensure our economies aren't needlessly obliterated by a ploy preying on unwise gut reactions to those wars.

I'm sorry am I the one pushing the buttons on a computer to use drones to bomb people to create refugees for you?

I am not.

You are only upset because the anti-immigrant idpol fervor is used to such an extent you would rather have working class victims of war be homeless than have bare minimum shelter. Your demands are ridiculous and you're playing right into the hands of geopoliticians and folk in the Council on Foreign Relations

The new zumvalt destroyer and Ford class carrier are trillion dollar pieces of shit too

If you took all the money spent on that crap how many refugees, not to mention Americans, could have been helped

I'm a radical except when my livelihood is threatened than I cower in fear in the secure arms of the governments that caused this situation to happen to begin with to ensure we're safe and liberal.

Rome fell because of the material effects of their class contradictions.

thats what marx believed. specifically, that revolution can only happen in the most developed industrial nation

And how wrong he was at that when you look at history: USSR, Mao, Sankara, et c et c.

In a time before the internet, someone believed the place with the most resources could create communism. This says nothing of the scenario occurring, where the West now has less working class people than the rest of the world in particular China

This

The way stormshits in this thread are talking you'd think that "no borders"is just an open invitation for every brown on the planet to flood into the West and don't even think about what the wider implications of having no borders.

One of the rare threads where the an fem isn't the retard

And some of you act like this is surprising, that the military would ever stoke the anti immigrant fears of its populace by having its governments act on the situation as incompetently as possible.

But it is entirely purposeful.

The military industrial complex has ballooned to such an extent during the cold war, that at any given moment we are spending at minimum $5 trillion dollars on new military projects. Only 5 is being generous.

And the people who plan it all currently in the Council on Foreign Relations and such? In particular?

Guess what most aren't fucking military, they're in business or the sons or daughters of wealthier monopoly makers. They are there to streamline war.

As a nice example, here's a choice pick from the Council on Foreign Relations. Penny Pritzker, grandchild of A.N. Pritzker, who, with sons Jay and Robert, created Industrial conglomerate Marmon and hotel chain Hyatt

She was also the 38th United States Secretary of Commerce. That's right, the daughter of the guy who made the fucking Hyatt chain is fucking playing Dr Strangeloe.

It's out in the open and people here are more willing to blame the refugees of these retards actions.

As opposed to caving into their stratagem and ushering in their premeditated wave of immigrants simultaneously too large for our economy to bear, and too small to make any difference to the overwhelming majority of their countrymen who can never leave?

What an asinine dichotomy. When you're at war, do you blame the soldiers shooting at you? The workers who built their guns and loaded their ammo? No, they are simply schlubs like you, doing what the system has forced them to. That doesn't mean you can fight the people responsible for the war without defending yourself from them.

It is literally not too large for our economy to bear. Policy is created to make them inconvenient to become even more of an Other. The only one falling for the tricks of think tanks are you folk.

If we can spend five trillion on worthless machinery for the purpose of creating more refugees there is quite literally no reason we can't give bare minimum housing.

Nope. It is not.

Because it harms our working class and empowers porky? Because it politically weakens and alienates the left and fuels the right? Because it rewards porky for starting shit, and incentivizes them to keep doing it? Because it accomplishes basically nothing for the global poor? Because basically anything else, even doing absolutely nothing, would be better? Because it is an endless, pointless waste?

It does not harm it nearly as much as what you should be paying attention to

This is a distraction to incentivize the next voting cycle.

Besides, doing the classic move of separating someone who worked in a factory that was decimated, in a country who's infrastructure is decimated, needing to find labor

That's not working class at all. Far from it.

There are MANY things we should be paying attention to. Neoconservative ones like military embezzlement and wealthfare taxes. Neoliberal ones like deregulation, privatization, offshoring, and mass immigration. None of those should be ignored, because any of them could be rapidly pivoted into position as the primary firepower against the working class.

...

in my country they don't

Well did the workers get the means in said situations?

Remember workers, unemployment, low wages, funding cuts to public services and crime are caused by foreigners! They are the cause of your problems! Without them capitalism would be just fine!

Remember workers, the only way we can achieve socialism is if we open our borders! Once the living standards of the working class have atrophied sufficiently they'll surely band together to overthrow us-I mean, the bourgeois!

no such thing

The funny thing is literally nobody in the government is arguing to open your borders to immigrants. It's refugees of war. That's it.

Unless you want stricter immigration, and how in the fuck is that even going to hurt porky in the slightest.

These are all fucking mind games to divide class

Remember workers, your living standards are only dropping because of immigrants, only them and nothing else, all you need to do is get rid of them, nothing else, no need to form unions or parties, just vote for the most spook- I mean- patriotic party and everything will be fine. After all, foreigners are not fellow workers, or even human beings

Why would they? When was the last time any Western government had a major crackdown on legal immigration?

Yeah, I'm guessing it's just coincidence labour had its greatest gains in the US shortly after the 1924 immigration act massively reduced immigration.

Obama has deported more immigrants within his administration than both Bush and Clinton.

Different population numbers, it didn't matter because of Capitalism's instability that a crash was dead ahead five years later. Also if your point is to defend the economy and the wealthiest among us, just admit you're a liberal and move on.

Remember workers, the best way to form a united labour movement striving towards a common goal is if we import millions of foreign workers with diverse languages, beliefs, and heritage! If history has taught humanity anything, it's that the more ethnic/cultural/religious/linguistic distinctions a nation's working class has, the more likely they are to organise for their own interests! Us porkies-I mean, the bourgeous, surely wouldn't exploit those differences against you-I mean, us

you obviously don't care about it either, so what are you doing here?

Mocking Holla Forums for being the useful idiots you are.

Oh, its Holla Forums. Goddammit we took the bait again.

The working class is the working class, you can't pick favorites to benefit capitalism you bitch

If anything it points out how gullible you are to believe bullshit propagated by think tanks. For probably all your life.

then it makes sense to drop any form of ethnic/cultural/religious/linguistic distinctions aka spooks and focus on the real issue, the capitalists mode of exploitation

but you won't because you are an impotent liberal

The working men have no country. Shit was true in 18 fucking 48, it's even more true now. Nuff' said.

...

And this is why Marxism and all the other secular Utopian ideologies will inevitably fail. "Yeah Ahmed, just stop believing in Allah, he's a spook, bro".

I'm sorry do you actually think Capitalism isn't dying? When the plug is pulled the failure of Capitalism will be more historic than the failure of even the USSR

sad thing is there are probably some people here who aren't Holla Forums but have been memed into believing the Asserite crap

it's easy, we give him two options, to realize class struggle comes before his spooks, and allow him to belive in Allah without this conflicting class truggle or beat him until he stops being an Islamo-fascist

The death of capitalism is predicted every what, decade? And after it manages to survive all the avowed Marxists and others scramble to find excuses for why it's survival was actually predicted by Marxist principles, so there. But don't worry, it'll surely collapse next time!

I'm sure if we don't all die from global warming I'll be enjoying another several decades of Marxists insisting that this is capitalism's final hour, yeah they were wrong about the Great Crash of 2018, and Black Tuesday 2027, but surely…

No, that isn't an argument. I've only seen people like you argue it's been argued it's dying every decade. The Cold War was substantially different. The 90's optimistic.

Capitalism is dying. You can only go through so many debt generating booms and busts.

so capitalism isn't dying?, the fact that the cappies have to continue waging wars in the middle east to exploit the surplus labour to make up for the faling profit rates doesn't mean it's dying?

and you call yourself a "nationalist"?

World War 1 was capitalism's final hour, the Great Depression was capitalism's final hour,…

And how are you so sure that they won't find a quick fix this time? How do I know as is always the excuse the capitalists won't manage to find a 21st Century FDR that saves the capitalist system from itself?

Also, nobody is saying this is Capitalism's final hour. This will take years, decades even. Or it could happen quicker then anyone imagined.

But Capitalism will go out painfully. We're only watching the beginning, by 2080's and beyond capitalism and the world as we know it being at all similar to today is about as likely as it sounds. It'll be on its way out.

and then you get beat up by antifa faggots

To be fair there was very real reason to believe this.

Because the motivations aren't oriented around labor for the first time in over a century, and with the context now, that's not going to work.

"Capitalism will go on into the sunset forever just like Rome"

t. White American, Midwest 2016

what does whiteness have to do with that?

How do you propose that we stop people from producing and trafficking these drugs? More border checks? Smaller and smaller borders until we stop and frisk everyone everywhere? Because that's what we're doing right now.

but that's the point, they're just creations to benefit Porkies.

Capitalists have no qualms crossing borders and national divisions, neither should we workers

I don't think it will go on for ever, I think peak oil, global warming and multiple other calamities will see its end without a transition to socialism. Best case scenario is some sort of Amish-style communalism

If it's the Anfem poster I think it is he's a Vietnamese-American with issues with white people

Obliviousness in the face of economic busts and booms is a tradition to suburbanites.

So people, after the collapse of Capitalism, as destructive as it would be, would just go back to doing the same thing.

That isn't believable in the slightest, if anything the 21st century will be seen as a learning lesson.

Besides the fact there is more to doom capital than just that.

I think they'll be forced to due to the absence/cost of the resources necessary to maintain a socialist state as envisioned by Holla Forums

The majority of human existence has hardly been about capitalism as you know it, it's been about other things.

You're doing a shit job of arguing the success of Capitalism by admitting its end is catastrophe and it can't grow forever.

I overheard a business news channel on TV the other day actually suggest a basic universal income is an inevitability due to automation.

It was actually originally proposed by Nixon. It could eliminate a lot of red tape and bureaucracy from the welfare system if done right.

The inevitable end game is fully automated gay space communism, of course.

Answer the question, cretin.

right here

"Obliviousness in the face of economic busts and booms is a tradition to suburbanites."

I think I can fairly stereotype the traditional American suburbanite into the offspring of hopeful baby boomers. It's a generalization sure but, who needs to specify it down with identity politics :v)

then we will beat antifa for being anti-fascism fascists

An-Fem, what do you actually propose be done about immigrants fleeing war zones? All the people who have been making pragmatic arguments and you just seem to dismiss them on completely idealist grounds.

Yes, it would be good if money wasn't funneled into the fucking military and weapons sytems and was used to help people. But it isn't, and we aren't going to change that in the near future.

molyneux.jpg

The amount of immigrants fleeing is relatively small in comparison to say, Hispanic immigrants we've had in the past 30. I say if they make you suffer for ideological purposes to divide the classes, then focus on the actual problem, and not the working class. And if you say some generic shit like

Neither do most of the people here

I mean the thing about being a radical marxist in a capitalist society is that my dream marxist policies can't be implemented under the current mode of production without depressing the conditions of workers.

Immigration is absolutely a threat to collective bargaining and organized labor. I understand that many may argue for open-borders from the accelerationist POV, but I feel this has only created reactionaries.

Nothing has created reactionaries more than Think Tanks and loaded language repeated to get a dominant Republican majority. You think I'm bullshitting but I'm not, it's been this way for decades.

I'm arguing that socialism springing from capitalism is unlikely to happen, not that capitalism is the be-all end-all of societal organisation. And the post-capitalist state probably won't be capitalist as you envision it.

The existence of NEETs is depressing enough without reducing anyone that can't get a job thanks to automation to essential NEEThood. I'm not advocating for "socialisation camps for NEETs" or anything, just that any basic universal income needs to be tied in some way to the community, not "Here's your $600 for the week, now fuck off"

"Post-capitalist" meaning whatever happens after the environmental problems I identified cause the collapse of the international economic system

Wim Kok led a coalition of liberals and socdems. He had a talk at my school once, he was practically a liberal.

I didn't say they didn't work. Additionally, what do you suggest Europe, America and other countries should do about these immigrants. You didn't answer my question.

House them, feed them, let them work. It's only polite the government pay for war crimes it committed in the past.

You're going up against the wall, for the following reasons:
no, the workers pay
No, the bourgoiesie commited them and benefitted from them
We are not going to pay jack SHIT for the thing AMERICA did. We have have our hands full with our former-colonies, dont you fucking say we, the workers of europe, have to pay the price for the oil wars of the united states while you and your bourgoies cocksucking little friends sit comfortably behind your computer in a gigantic country which accepts a grand total of several thousand refugees, while still surpressing and refusing to repay the results of your own internal crimes against humanity such as the genocide of the native americans and the enslavement of the black and their continued oppression.

...

Abolish capitalism so that there is no need for immigration

Noodle Wrist Walter is going to capture me and hold me against the wall with a few number of niche internet people

Foreign aid is the better alternative, user.

Foreign aid means jack shit when everything is occupied by radical ethnic nationalists and industry completely destroyed

South Korea, and Japan may take you up on that.

Ah yes Russia and China! The two most homogeneous countries in the world!

They're not in the middle of where the world's powers go to play war and incite violence.

I'm not too sure if opening boarders to EVERYONE is the best idea. Considering that there are fundamentalist/ radical jihadists amongst refugees. Not to mention a lot of these immigrants are economic migrants.

I don't want to see these people being used for cheap labour and I don't want see fundamentalists spread Islamism. That is not to say that I'm against Islamic immigration, but I believe the faith in its current mainstream form as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan al Hisri would say, needs reform.

...

Read a history book, darling

I never suggested otherwise? Why don't you read sentences.

No, I don't like the system that is able to absorb all opposition.

You suggested that they weren't at the centre of conflicts with other countries (which some of them conquered) despite them expanding territory and engaging in a shit load of conflict.

Like I said, foreign aid which comes in the form of;

Admission of immigrants on the basis of their contribution to the economy. The current system "is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories".

Diplomatic, economic and military interventions in countries that cause large migrant flows.

Introduction of assimilation programs that acknowledge that "the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration".

I'm the case of the latter, this will demolish a form of idpol and perhaps help them acknowledge class struggle. Lots of Muslim women may take kindly to the prospect of a form of not only social but economic freedom

Negros are incompatible with socialism as intelligent cooperation requires just that intelligence.
Countless studies have show even the richest blacks fall behing the poorest whites in Autism Level tests.
They should not be allowed anywhere near europe their foreign aid should be cut off and they shall be left to die out as they should of centuries ago.

I. Q . level tests*
Ah typical that they should try to censor the truth

So you're in a favour of defending the system which helps minorities and grants gays and women liberation?

Good to know

peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

It's a convoluted excuse at denying entry to victims of war motivated by actual identity politics, since you aren't letting them have vacancy due to their very identity

rense.com/general79/dut.htm

You can suck as many nigger cocks as you like but keep those apes away from humanity

It's another "share data and come to conclusions that the people I cite would abhor" poster

Graduate high school, get a GED, occupy yourself with enough time to fuck off

Lee 2008: "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as Autism Level scores"

AAA 1998: "For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"

Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.

Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.

Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings.

...

This is not about punishing current generations for the crimes of past generations or punishing the peoples for the actions of their governments you identitarian fuck.
This is about helping fellow people in particular workers which are in dire need of help!

The solution is to:

Not to make compromise with or adopt Reactionaries' positions.
But you don't want to struggle, you don't want to fight. You want a revolution handed to on a silver plate.

pls leave this board forever liberal scum

And yet they keep passing higher quotas and looser enforcement, much like how Republicans always bitch about gun control, but every single piece of gun control legislation has smudgy Republican fingerprints all over it.

Yes, refugees from "wars" created intentionally as a means of (among other reasons) laundering what would otherwise be illegal immigrants, and then every politician and mainstream "authority" on the "refugees" makes it a binary choice between letting in tsunamis of slave labor or completely abandoning them to their fate.

Wow, I dunno, maybe by increasing the value of labor against capital?

Illegals, while not totally insignificant (~10 million), are a meme issue in comparison with the >70 million 1st/2nd-generation legal immigrants. Also, in spite of all these deportations, current numbers of illegals are higher than ever before, and convictions for those who employ them nonexistent.

So small, the vast majority can never flee all the way here, meaning their acceptance has basically zero humanitarian justification.

And why waste money doing that in expensive 1st-world nations, rather than in the far cheaper nations on the refugees' doorstep? Every refugee wastefully hosted here, is worth many dead refugees that could've been saved if not for your utterly counterproductive narcissistic moral masochism.

And you seriously think "leftists" pushing immigrants down the working class's throat has HARMED the rise of rightism?

Convenient, then, that there are stable regions inside those countries relatively untouched by war, and many neighboring countries beside, all cheaper and more effective to help as many people as much as possible than bringing them here to flood our labor market.

Not that you aren't right to a certain degree, but your lack of emphasis on economic issues sounds suspiciously spooky.

True, assimilationism was the preferred policy before PC went insane and decided that the thing immigrants most want is to bring all the problems they ran away from to their new home.

Rome lasted well over a millennium (two plus if you count the HRE), capitalism has had a little over three centuries so far insert "muh thousand year reich" jokes here. Even global warming isn't predicted to increase sea levels more than a meter or two for centuries according to IPCC consensus, with supplies of coal predicted to last likewise. If humanity has one well-proven skill, it's the ability to muddle forward with practices just barely good enough to get the job done as long as possible.

>demand that the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and others also accept a substantial number of refugees.
One of these things is not like the others

...

Labour is stronger the more isolated it is? This doesn't seem correct.

whatever floats your boat m8

3rd world capital (accessible through free trade) and labor (accessible through mass immigration and free trade) are subsidized against 1st-world capital and labor by their inferior legal environment, rendering 1st-world capital and labor uncompetitive unless we either deregulate to 3rd-world levels, or raise the 3rd-world up to our level.

Capitalists must be forced to abide by our laws, and the only way to do that is by restricting the mobility of capital and labor alike.

So you only want to compete within certain lines, with certain cultures because you're familiar. All you've done is change the scale and magnitude of the project of capital, not the capital itself. Instead, you'll have only increased the competition between yourselves in the 1st world, having freed so many jobs you might only increase the industrial reserve army of labour within your own nation, driving unemployment upwards, and the disparity between you and the 3rd world all the wider, further exacerbating the economic constraints already in a degenerate form that pushed for the same migration that you wanted to prevent.
At least now you are being honest about your intentions to deligitimize the adjustability and power of what labour already has!
Pure ideology. The sublime object of charity is an aggravation of the difficulty, pacifying the revolutionary potentinal of the working class. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.

Wrong, strong unions defending the working rights of migrants render this cheaper way of getting labour useless

which can be done by industrializing it, now I am not saying that it should be done by the developed, but a strong global union and movement can help, and said movements can only start in the developed world, as the developed world is the ideological base for capitalism

Now without strong unions or a global union free migration only helps the capitalists, but in order to stop it you don't only fight againts migration, but againts the capitalists

I hope their boats sink in the mediterranean

edgy

this

3spooky5me m8. Notice that I never once emphasized spooks.

By reducing the number of competitors, as our native birthrate naturally collapses from prosperity?

You realize that shrinking that disparity overwhelmingly by bring US DOWN instead of THEM UP is bad for labor, right?

Making life harder and more desperate for labor to think beyond their next meal, and capital freer to meddle; giving capital the tools it needs to beat down any attempts at organization by labor in one region, with their pick of the most submissive slaves in the entire world from others; stripping away every legal and political concession won by labor, while submitting meekly to every blatant powergrab by capital; surely these are not ideal conditions for victory by labor.

Foreign aid (as well as the various financial instruments and trade compacts that often shade into it) could certainly stand from many reforms, but replacing it with the perfect gift porky always wanted is hardly one of them.

1082897
Do you know what "labor union" means? It refers to the intentional rationing of labor supply, so as to increase the value of labor to the point that capital must capitulate to bargaining with the union. You can't ration labor unless you force away all alternate sources of labor. Strikebreaking scabs, like policemen and goons, are innocents caught in the middle of a vicious cycle, but the most compassionate thing to do in the long term is NOT to acquiesce to their short-term demand, but to fight them and break the cycle. We have to stanch hemorrhaging of blood before we can mend the wound.

Worker solidarity isn't all snuggles and rainbows, never has been, never can be.

That is what a nation-state is, a force bound with more or less arbitrary lines.
t. spooked
You are mistaken when I say stricter immigration, for which I mean both apartheids of strong border patroling, but also the paradoxical opposite, mass flight to a foreign country or power (so you have to think about even the immigrants material interests). I am sure you don't mean deport all immigrants away, no, of course not, how could anyone be so cruel in this era. Instead, you would have ID'd them, made sure that they had a secure providence, established them with a small source or means to get food, and so on and so forth. Yes, I know many employers support immigrant workers being in this country because without them, many industries simply could not function. Immigrant workers allow for greater profits to be extracted from all working people by forcing competition between "documented" and "undocumented" workers (which also means those 3rd worlders competing with you and manipulating their own countries currencies), thereby driving wages to the bottom in an economy where jobs are increasingly hard to find. A lack of legal protections against low or unpaid wages, unsafe working conditions, and poor housing conditions, makes undocumented workers ripe for super-exploitation and increased profits, but at the same time, it forces them to need more money, more goods, the taste accrued in their mouths by the mere rules of the system.

However, it is inevitable that in many cases, resentment at low wages and poor conditions will play an important role in turning out large numbers for the stoppage of a equally established & encompassing global system of capital. Violence, to say that you have to stop now, at a very deep level is were things can happen. We as communists cannot apologize for this terror, when the times are arranged for our come. The very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated.

Ack, broken link in meant for

The relation between cultures and national borders is somewhat fuzzy, often nonexistent. The relationship between national borders and legal codes, however, is absolute.

In other words, if 1st-world citizens weren't constantly bombarded by immigrants, wars, volatile price spikes on (artificially) vital trade goods, and literal bombardment by terrorists, you think simple human empathy wouldn't motivate the masses to care about the 3rd-world?

A common enough accelerationist doctrine, but cynicism aside, I wouldn't bet all my chips that the necessary conditions for reform or revolution will occur (no less with success!) before increasing 1st-world privation plunges the entire world into feudalism again.

Remember that everything we have, even everything the foolish and vain capitalists have, is the result of centuries of agitation and reformism by workers against the forces of absolute authoritarianism lurking beneath modern capitalism.

Because those "industries" couldn't actually create enough value for consumers to buy their "products" at their true price, and are in fact cleverly disguised Ponzi schemes rather than economically productive industries, right?