NO BORDERS NO NATIONS

control populations in what way?
private property is bourgeoisie's tool to protect property relations

im not defending borders or nation states just pointing out that being pro-immigration is exploitative and capitalist

Exploited populations cannot leave to find better working conditions.
Divide the global working class.

Literally shaking tbh

you mean cant escape they hellhole they live in to get exploited slightly less in another country?
Why is it that capitalists like open borders so much?

They only like open borders to drive down wages. In the case of the US they like illegal immigrants because they can be exploited more and have zero recourse due to the threat of deportation.

...

you only have two courses of action with immigration and wages

1-same wages as the native pop or high tech jobs
shit way of combating poverty
can create problems for countries people are emigrating

2-lower wages (or jobs nobody is willing to take for a low wage)
literally importing people so you can exploit them

then people physically/financially capable of running away from their country will leave creating problems for the country they are leaving and the population that doesnt get to emigrate

Is exploitative due to bourgeois laws that stop migrants from unionizing

and what about the countries migrants are emigrating away from?

If lines on a map mean nothing to you, you're thinking like a primitive caveman, who knew nothing of borders or rights. You might as well say "language is scribbles on paper".

Borders are spooks, m8ties

What about them?

Language IS scribbles on paper tho

...

You've missed the point, but I'm not surprised.

I'm not the person you're responding too, but what do you mean? What are you asking?
The regions heavily exploited workers are hoping to flee are going to be exploited regardless, so long as nation states like the US can install their own puppet governments that collude in exploiting the native workforce.

people who emigrate are workers and the countries they emigrate from usually suffer because they lose a lot of their labor force.
This is even more true with higher educated immigrants

Told you about the state dog

Do make your point tho, but the idea that nations =civilization is moot

ICE isn't a spook.

...

So then lets abolish property rights, nation-state and fiat money and engage in some form of universal mutual currency, given by a mutual bank, so that the labour of every worker is recompensated equally here and in somalia, determined not by a central authority but by an actual free'd market

This means its no longer profitable to keep a reserve army of labour in the 3rd world or that it is cheaper to exploit natural resources there

Sounds like a spook to me

My point that just because borders are "lines on a map", does not mean they have no meaning or purpose.

so sort of like investing in adn helping poor countries so nobody has to leave their country to find a decent job?

Borders are a spook. The enforcement agencies that violently uphold the border spook are real.

How many undocumented immigrants are going to have enough to pay off an ICE official? Not to mention that ICE agents are scum who genuinely enjoy their jackboot jobs.

The purpose is to exploit labour, the meaning they have is the historic necessity to keep the first part going

whatndo you mean by adn helping?

On the contrary, there would be no countries anymore, but people sharing values and traditions on the basis of mutual share, the Olympics is a perfect example of it, once we stablish a global system of automated food prodiction, and mutually create an organism that keeps population stable, all form of market exchange will be on the basis of healthy competition, as the fight for resources wont happen anymore

They can always kill the ICE official lmao

Like just kill him laws are spooks

Now THIS is the discourse I'm looking for.

FBI pls

I see immigrant communities (muh legal and not legal) look out for each other by announcing raids.
I think television network channels announce upcoming raids and checkpoints.

and* helping sorry im an egghead.I mean financial investment in education,healthcare and infrastructure for poor countries.I disagree with the notion that we should abolish all nations.Also we arent talking about immigrants directly here so this isnt all that useful

...

True entryism is leftists joining the deep state.

...

The problem is such finance scheme is stil within the realm of capitalism

We need workers coops to make use of the benefits of a market economy while we reach a point where market exchange is not necessary for basic survival, the state and private property are in direct opposition to this

We cannot discuss immigration as an isolated event

Dumb leftcom

how is it within the real of capitalism?
why is it not helpful?
Obviously immigration is tied to many things but that doesnt mean we cant discuss the direct effects of immigration.Immigration friendly policies of western europe left my country with a serious healthcare problem because doctors and medical technicians emigrate.I dont disagree with your ideas that much but I still hold that immigration has negative effects for the country people are emigrating from

Seems that's the purpose of everything, you're too deep in commie dogma.

...

Because it still aims at preserving the legal institutions that preserve private property, uses the market as a tool to exploit the labourer, its not helpful because it eventually creates more problems

Why is in charge of your country hospitals? Why arent the doctors creationg cooperative hospitals that also preserve ghe old tradition of educating future medics? It isprofitable to create separate institutions, a school and a hospital, so the state defend said distinction

What is it then?

...

See

heh,what a dummy :)

universal health care but my country is poor so living conditions are difficult so doctors want to emigrate.What institutions preserve private property and how?
can you adress my main point on immigration?

So what if instead of paying taxes to the state, you pay them directly to the hospital?, That way your money is actually spent on healthcare, reducing the cost, lower cost also increases the possibility of new cooperative hospitals to be created, as more money is spent in building hospitals and schools

The state preserves private property, I assume it says so in its constitution

A hospital can work without a state, so can a school, the nation sstate is a parasitic entity, that serves to defend the capitalists

Your main point is difficult to adress, if there are less physicians then, ideally, we would need to create new medic schools, instead of paying for border patrol officials, drug officials, national parades and so on, remember that the reason people do not became doctors is lack of opportunities

i dont disagree with you at all I just believe that direct help to poorer countries works better overall and that immigration does more damage.My country doesnt spends very little on those things to begin.Lack of opportunities yes but also a low standard of living proportional to the amount of work you put it.And what happens when we get new doctors then?They emigrate.Why?Because people still support immigration

What about culture and private property?

I'm sure she can allow a few illegals into her home

But direct help in the sense of mutual ownership of the commodity and physical market helps not only the poorest but society as a whole

Immigration will continue to happen even if you invest in a hospital, because the problem is not the lack of hospitals, thats just a symptom

as long as there is capitalism, their will be deportations.

Until the markets and the imperialists are gone you can't dissolve them since someone else is going to try to colonize.

Capitalism can exist under planned production too

in helps the poorest but in the society the mutual owenership is happening not the society people are immigrating from and if that society had mutual ownership there wouldnt be need to immigrate.My point is that it is more effecient to help people in their society and that taking a small portion of that population and relocating it to a richer society causes harm.

The people that say this seem to have no problem with North Korea shooting defectors

Yes, without a doubt, however in the sense of political economy, we dont only care about the rich countries, the vision of society must be scientific, rich countries getting migrants matter because of political and economic reasons, not social or cultural, as immigration helps degrade tribalist roots it is difficult to strictly oppose it

Meant the internationalized system banks ripping off countries and ruining them with disastrous loans and the military industrial complex starting reckless wars which cause constant unnecessary humanitarian crises and destroy resources driving people all over instead of actually helping them.

but it does the exact oposite for tribalism.Trump,Brexit and any recent hard/far right wing movement has been directly motivated by immigration.What economic reasons?

Go take a short walk between Best and Worst Korea. I'll wait.

Wrong, the real reason is that right wing parties are focuaing on the economic issue, hispanics and black people that voted for trump voted for obama, brexit proved that tribalism politics actually harm the economy, brexit is the result of neoliberalism imposed my tatcher

The surge of the far right is an economic issue, despite what the vocal minority of pol belives

Abolishing tribalism doesnt mean abolishing only white tribalism, pol is dumb, muslims, jews, asians and so on must be reformed following the necessity to adress the economic issues first

Don't mainstream liberals think this too?

They do?

You might think you're being clever but geopolitics is based mostly on natural borders like rivers, mountains, etc. You add in language, culture, and custom, and suddenly borders do mean something. Animals have territory and it very much means something to them.

Well they won't come out and say it. But get back to me when the Guardian starts running pieces on how Saudi or Africa need diversity.

Yeah, other than the police, military, and governments that enforce those borders. SUREE, NATIONS DONT EXIst KEK

It could also be considered a reflection of what you said in >brexit is the result of neoliberalism imposed my tatcher

glad i wasn't the only one who picked up on this fucked part of that rant

this poll an another showing that people mostly didnt want to leave if they though the goverment had control of immmigration.Western europe rejects multiculturalism and immigration and forcing it further is a ton of work with not a lot to gain from it

But user I am not advocating for diversity, dont be dumb
diversity means more culture being shoved down our throats, i dont care about your retarded white, african or saudi heritage,they are equally shit

Its seems like you are confusing basic terms like anarchism and multicultiralism

I am arguing from an economic perspective, tribalism is a burden on a global mutual society, you dont fix it by peaceful coexistance of more tribes, but by their abolishment

Name or describe on system that we could all live under.

I mean she could have just shortened it to spook.

but most tribes dont want to be abolished and its not like tribalism is stopping communism

Are you referring to multicultural societies not working or the peaceful coexistance of nations in the world? If nations are peaceful and work together the tribal ties could be abolished as a result.

A mutual economy, where the MoP are owned mutually, basic necessities are fully automated, and before you claim this part as utopic, all farming, processing and delivery can already be automated, the rest of the commodities are taken care off by a market, as people do not have to work to eat, all that is produced in the market is producing for consumption
There are no nation states, as nation states only function to defend private property, it is imperative to end tribalism as the core idea of tribalism is competition, we can overcome competition in this day and age

Tribalism is stopping anarchism

There is no such thing as peaceful coexistance between nations, nation working together is no longer nationalism, as if they are working together, the nation-state is the first thing to be abolished

Meant nations more in a tribal sense, do you not think there can be peace coexistance between tribes that would lead to their abolishment?

At that point there is no such thing as two tribes, but one

If they do not wish to consider themselves one, then there is no peaceful coexistance

To be honest, the concept of borders is indeed violent and silly. The rest is pure ideology (materialist, selfish, and racist) or derives from the concept of borders (colonialist and xenophobic)
tho.

immigration is imperialistic, it keeps the third world down because all th educated moves to the first world instead of improving their homeland.

smelly
dumb
nazbol scum

why do communists and capitalists both support immigration?

more like anarkiddies

Abolish all that other stuff first then we'll talk

nah even self proclaimed MLs do

She's absolutely correct. Defending "borders" means defending the private property of your capitalist masters.

The population of the US is roughly 325 million. The population of the earth is roughly 7 billion. Given that, there are roughly 6.675 billion people who do not live in the US.

How many of those 6.675billion people do you think the US can support on it's landmass? Is there any number of people where you are willing to say "that is an untennable population for this landmass?"

Do you unironically believe everyone on Earth wants to move to the US?

That isn't an answer to my question.

Of course borders and nations exist silly. You were suppose to learn that in primary school.

Yes Brothers, in order to elevate humanity we must first destroy ever nation with an Autism Level above 95.

it's about a billion overall who would if they could.

...

...

Tell me, how are u going to protect workers after the revolution?

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

Yeah like, fuck borders and laws and shit, dude.

top cuck

Well, China has 1.3 billion living within its borders, has the same size as the US, and the US has more fertile lands. So even if that happened, it wouldn't really be a big deal.
Now, the reason people go to the US or Europe is because their own countries suck
They tried, but the CIA wouldn't let them. And, what would you do? If you live in, say, central USA, work in programming, and your only realistic perspective for a decent job are somewhere on the west coast, you would probably move there. Well done, you're an immigrant who couldn't improve his own place.

Not training jihadists, invading and bombarding countries for literally no reason but corporate profits might help, too.

Indeed, only then we can have true freedom.

Would you be fine with the 6.5 billion people who do not live in the US trying to move to the US?

You made the grave mistake of asking Holla Forums for actual data and numbers. Don't you know? They voted for Bernie Sanders. Feels>Facts.

They never answer direct questions. Never.

to late
see

As a European, I would be out of fucks to give. In fact, I would even support it, as you would just suffocate in your own degenerate culture while we retake the Old World and impose Socialism there.

As many as possible. The same goes for Europe and any other rich country. If this means emptying out the third world entirely, do it. This will worsen the lives of natives of these countries, make no mistake, but it will improve the lives of the global poor by a greater amount.

nah

>whole ideology is based on personal dislike of certain ethnicities and races plus a tonne of autism

The fuck?

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you would be OK with the 6.5Billion people who do not live in the US showing up and saying "We live here now". That was the question. It's a very simple question.

The US is mostly empty in the middle. It can support a lot more people. It throws away a ton of food every year, too. Same goes for Canada. Together they could probably take about a billion.

pretty sure he answered in the affirmative by saying as many as possible

So, you think that the land mass of the US is capable of supporting 7.1Billion people?

OR
someone could impose tyrannical socialism on Africa in the areas where Rhodesia used to be and restore food production there so food and people would not need to be shipped over seas

Are you retarded?
have you read anyone speaking about themselves in the third person?
is english your second language?

This is indeed a much better option than . Revolutionary colonialism.

That doesn't answer my question

I'm not the one you asked and if you're question isn't answered by now you need to learn to read
you asked him if he was ok with it
he said as many as possible
if you feel you need to ask again you should seriously consider killing yourself

It's not a matter of need. Letting these people go to rich countries will improve their lives by a greater amount than revolutionary colonialism. I'm sure they would agree. Like I said, rich countries should be taking as many as environmentally possible.

"as many as possible" doesn't answer the question of whether or not they think 7.1Billion is possible.

Utilitarian detected, no thanks.
Mass immigration will lead to ethnic struggles when as you say, "the lifes of the natives worsens".
The real beneficiaries of that plan would be porky and the upper middle class, as the cost of labor gets drastically reduced.

You need to get rid of porky, then.

only for as long as they contribute and help maintain the infastructure and integrate with the existing cultures, of which realisticly, they would do neither.
I dont doubt it.
that is both logistically unfeasible and culturally undesirable.
improving the infrastructure and production locally would better suit their needs and would not require comgining or destruction of any cultures

HIS statement of "as many as possible" is an affirmative to an extreme, I should not have to explain this to you

combining*

I disagree "as possible" means as many as we can have and still function. The question that I am asking is if 7.1 people can function on the land mass of the United States. That is my question. That is what I am asking. I would like an answer to that question from anyone bold enough to offer one.

You can't fit 7.1 billion people in the US without an environmental disaster. You can certainly fit another 300-500 million, or more, if you cared about filling out the empty areas.

So, the "yes or no" answer to my "yes or no" question is…

No, you cannot fit 7.1 billion people in the United States. How is this not obvious?

I seriously hope Holla Forums ain't this retarded. Communism by definition has borders, because communism is for the people, not the other. Globalist communists are just rich corportists who will die in gulag, and so will there supporters.

function is an incredibly vague and relative term
I'm sure many on Holla Forums see "as possible" as all poor peoples

your an autist but since we've coem thsi far I'll give my answer
I posted this
and I think bringing in ANY immigrants from disadvantaged foreign countries is a bad idea for various reasons, gumball video included

USA could do this and still have a lower population density than Bangladesh. So, maybe?
But do you really think that would happen? Every single person in the world moving to the USA?
I'm against immigration and multiculturalism but, that's fucking retarded.

You could theoretically fit 7.1 billion people in the United States. This is however not desirable.

So, we all agree that the land mass of the United States cannot support every single human inhabitant of the planet earth in the number of 7.1 billion?

So what?

If we all agree that we cannot support 7.1 billion people on the land mass in the US, then we have to agree that enacting borders to prevent the entirety of that 7.1billion people from coming over are necessary.

Except 7.1 billion people are not going to go to the USA, so no.

They are not going to the USA because we have borders that keep them out.

Why most places and people are dirt poor. The only reason they wouldn't is because they couldn't. You would help them all come over right? Diversity is so good for us that we have to get everyone we can. I mean they are all just wanting a better opportunity!

Here's what these lefty idiots don't get: By importing these poor nations brightest minds we are engaging in a new colonialism. These are the people who would effect real change in their own countries, but we take them in. So we take in a few hundred thousands of these people every year - at the expense of about 5billion other people! LOL! And we're supposed to think you're humanitarian? LOL

Jesus, your so bad at arguing, I'm actually starting to revise my anti immigration views and starting to support open borders from reading your posts.

You don't know how socratic dialogue works, do you?

excessively improbably so the answer is no, we do not agree that "enacting borders to prevent the entirety of that 7.1billion people from coming over" is necessary
we SHOULD enhance borders, with a wall, to prevent free crossing though
you are shit at arguing and I'm for borders

why are you quoting them, you look like a tard monologuing while high on your own ego

I don't think this is the case, I think he's just a retard

...

that's a big leap from what he said, ignoring everything else and focusing on one part

There's no difference between drawing an arbitrary line with a ruler on a map and making it follow a river. Adding in culture doesn't change that line one bit.

Working class solidarity.

Akshually most commies support immigration uniquely because it's the only thing they can possible push for to help out. If we could actually influence our gubbermands to stop bombing their homes or supporting the bombing of their homes, perhaps actually going to war to really stop their desolation in general instead of just creating new arms markets or petrol silk roads, etc. we'd do that. Immigration is the worst way to mend immiseration: band-aid on a cancer patient, but it's the only possible thing. There is ultimately really is no better or worse choice.

No.. but I know how hyperbole works.

First, by reducing labor costs, and second, because immigration is the only way they can keep pension funds and the like solvent, and if pension funds or grandma's Medicare went away, there would be riots.

There's no need to start worrying about borders until we've actually managed to bring in 500 million poor people and settle them in the empty regions of America.

well, the fact that the river exists as a natural border before national boarders are drawn would be a difference
the river sure, but 2 cultures that speak different languages do not mingle easily, that would be a cultural barrier to communication as well

Socialism focused on supporting and protecting localized food production by the people would work better
people would be less crowded and more resources would be produced

I would like to see that

What would actually happen is that more programs would be introduced to crush young people in order to recoup the costs from a lack of immigrants. Seniors love two things - voting and government handouts. For example Bush passed Medicare part D, one of the largest handouts to old people in recent memory. We can always afford more spending when the olds want it.

I really hate how seniors push their debt onto the young, especially the insufferable hoarders that are boomers

and I agree, that is more likely

Of course, Boomers also voted for Trump, while failing to realize that all the darkies they hate are coming to fund their retirement. It's just a final "fuck you" from the generation that brought us Reagan, the Bushes, and Clintonism.

honestly man I think returning production to the country, even if some of it is automated, will improve the US economy even if it does fuck the mexican and east asian ones
not like having them come here and take up housing and land is doing the states any favors

Here's an example of this: modernhealthcare.com/article/20170303/NEWS/170309964?CSAuthResp=1:273639339170103:180148:1024:24:approved:32DEB7E7331EE618649569EA1B44FDFE

Have to take care of our seniors, folks!

let me see if I'm reading this right
new bill for tax credits in 2020
people under 30 get 2000
people over 60 get 4000
does not discriminate based on income

the bill is updated 14 days later
higher end cutoff of tax credits, does this mean if you make enough you don't get credits?
would phase out Affordable Care Act for low income adults, I don't even know what they get for ACA though
current draft will also change from open ended entitlement to capped federal payments to states, so it doesn't vary and there is a max that can be given from the federal government to states, do I have that right?

Not what was being argued.

The fact of the matter remains that the border itself exists as a form of imposed violence, not some idealistic boundary. The borders between countries exist because they are violently imposed. The rivers, mountains, deserts, within borders don't become national borders just by being there.

ok
I don't think the river can be violent, or did you mean like threat of violence?
ok, sure, stay out of my yard or I'll beat you, got it
ok sure, they get picked because it's a natural barrier and make for a great national border when one is setting it

I'm having trouble divining your point though, can you reiterate it plainly?

oh shit this is the thing replacing obama care, the credit on tax or whatever towards insurance

I'm reading it now, looks ok but not amazing
what was the limit on obamacare for people who make jack shit?

Basically, do high-income seniors really need another tax credit? Plenty of seniors are sitting on expensive properties, stock options, and other investments. But, guess who votes for the GOP.

I see what you're getting at, but if I read this right aren't a lot of them losing out on Medicaid as a result of this replacing it?

But, it should be noted that the "leftist" NGOs that support immigration and relocation of refugees to Europe and the US also tend to be pro-war and pro-Western intervention.

But somehow we can't get thousands upon thousands of people in the street after Obama bombed Libya and calling him a "racist" but when someone like Trump who is an asshole don't get me wrong suggest that we should actually enforce our border and immigration laws, its just the most racist thing to ever happen. Bombing, invading, sending proxy forces into non-white countries, somehow doesn't count as racism.

Capitalists support the immigration from the Third World into what's called "the global North" because they know their facing a potential labor crisis, as these nations have been proletarianized for a long time and generally oscillate between 5-15% unemployment. They want to counteract any upward pressure on wages by importing foreigners used to working for less, boost their own demographic bases against Eastern rivals like Russia and China through such measures. They know the neoliberal model they've embraced is inferior to Keynesian and post-war state capitalist models but immigration is perhaps its real advantage as immigrants are held to be more "entrepreneurial" and they increase aggregate demand etc, etc. It's libertarian ethic is perhaps more compatible with immigration; that's why before we got fashy-libertards we had a lot of open borders folks. A million people moving anywhere and buying stuff and working is going to create some growth, that was one of the major advantages that the settler-nations of the 19th century had.

Supporting immigration is not only support for a tactic that's used to lower wages across the board and inflame racial and national tensions in order to divide workers but also its a way that the Western capitalists can whitewash their imperialist present and colonialist past. "Look how many browns we let in! We're not racists! We've come a long way from Rhodes! etc."

I've said it before, but the agenda of creating open borders for the free union of labor is intimately tied to the neoliberal agenda that prescribes the free movement and management of capital. The neoliberal program is one that Holla Forums claims to hate but when we understand there is a cultural element to neoliberalism and that its support base is not entirely based in the right we understand why it has not died despite its catastrophic failures. The "moral left" as Jean Bricmont dubs the vast majority of New Leftists will not give up support for open borders even if it empowers their enemies. Even if has become the avant-garde edge of capitalist expansion and imperial governance.

I recommend Gearoid's series for an in-depth analysis on how imperialist strategists are really thinking about migration, even if it is terribly eclectic, there is enough that's good in it to justify the recommendation:
dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/zionism-imperialism-in-the-age-of-counter-revolution/

No, it's mostly benefiting wealthier seniors as far as I can tell.

Islam for everyone! Behead all those who insult islam! Homosexuals should be killed like dogs!

I agree with you op, brilliant idea.

No one should have to work either, work is an illusion. We should just share all the money with everyone.
Why should Europe be rich and working all the time, when africa doesn't have enough money to even buy a McDonald's meal, and don't even work.

If we all stop working and give the money to africa and arabia, everyone will be equal.

I'm thinking average joe that worked in a factory here, I agree that the wealthy job owners not having to pay into it is a boon to them

>dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/zionism-imperialism-in-the-age-of-counter-revolution/

what a surprise lel

Who needs parks, national or otherwise, or farming land or forests - that makes no sense at all.

Cut down all the forests, bulldoze the crop fields and fill it up with free housing for another billion unemployed people living entirely on government handouts and imported food.

That makes sense.

Okay, I'll state it very simply.

It does not matter if state borders match physical objects or if they are arbitrary lines in the sand. The fact remains that they are declarations of state violence. The rest of what happens is just matters of course and aren't really relevant to the fact of how borders work.

fucking globalists

ok, and?

And what? My point is that the original post I was replying to was treating borders as if they "meant something" because some arbitrary number of idealistic things happened around them.While completely ignoring the fact that borders don't need any of those to still be a meaningful border.

is that what you were going for?
shit man I didn't pick that up at all, it seemed more like you were saying culture cannot define borders

All that proves is that the Western mainstream media (which is extremely corporate and right-wing by global standards) does not publish the work of Western leftists. How far left does the people who fashion themselves as the "opinion makers" in the West go? Sometimes they let Chomsky or Zizek onto BBC. Sometimes. It's not a daily occurrence like all the right-wing and center-liberal usually neoliberal ideologues they let on to their stations. Adam Curtis is probably the most left-wing producer of television content on any Western media outlet in English (again, tellingly, on the BBC) and he doesn't even consider himself a leftist.

I don't think he's really a Russiaboo for instance he wrote this about Putin and modern Russia:
dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/zionism-imperialism-in-the-age-of-counter-revolution/

I don't think thats an unreasonable position to take and notice he uses the word "client states" when he refers to Syria As for the point about Eurasian integration just because its irrelevant to the goal global communism doesn't mean its irrelevant to analyzing the contradictions of modern imperialism today. The Atlantic alliance of what Samir Amin calls the Triad (the US, Europe, and Japan) has been the fundamental fact of our lives for decades following World War II. If continental Europe moves East, it does diminish the strength of the US and other imperialists in that alliance outside of Europe proper.

Wrong link: dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/on-the-question-of-imperialism/

selfish and greedy bud

Open Bordrers presented as an axiomatic good, or refusal to recognize problems that arise from it, is pure unadulterated ideology, and no wonder it's spews from the mouth of zealous idpol retards.
Borders don't disappear because they are 'oppresive' and have to be removed, the disappear as a result of the system not needing them.
Asking for open borders in THIS system, is asking for ethnostates or Fascism to replace it.

Because of course it is

ITT

he was right about the red bourgeoisie thing tho.