Social justice movement and left wing

Leftists do not justify mass immigration of 3rd worlders, leftists advocate for the abolition of the state and borders under a new communist/egalitarian world order – that is a significant difference. In such a world in which capital would not reign supreme there would be no longer an economic incentive for people from the underdeveloped world to migrate to Western countries and no economic harm for citizens that live there if migration occurs.

Those words don't mean what you believe they mean. Marxism, libertarianism and anarchism are all very close together ideologically and Marxism is not globalist, it is internationalist. Globalism is a term specific to neoliberalism.

You will find that with leftists a very common position is that we ought to help people in need, refugees fleeing from war on so, but oppose the immigration of cheap workforces from foreign countries with the aim of replacing the native workforce.

We on Holla Forums are staunchly opposed to the SJW movement and even those leftists on Reddit and such that have given their life to identity politics are generally opposed to liberalism and SJW propaganda.

Don't confuse liberalism with the left-wing. Black Lives Matter is only barely a leftist movement in that some of its members try to steer it into a Marxist/Black Panther direction, glass ceiling is an entirely liberal concept, wage gap to a certain extent as well, it does concern Marxists but is a liberal narrative and "bash the fash" is mostly anarchists LARPing it out, although nobody here has a problem with fascists getting punched.

...

Both those positions stem for a similar critique of capitalism and it is of utmost importance that you understand the critique before you argue against people who are offering alternatives to capitalism. Please read this

Even those who believe "the state is everything" only do so because they believe that the state is needed for a transitionary period and eventually will wither away.

Marxism is internationalist, as is the end goal of all socialist tendencies. Internationalism is not the same as Globalism. You have a very juvenile understanding of what socialism. We are not "SJW's." We are socialists and as such we place the class struggle before any struggle that serves to divide the working class.

youtube.com/watch?v=euH3pAuLuko&list=PLxHzg5f2_EudeGt7lxHEkT5tDSjanvS0p

Watch this simple video and come back when you have an understanding of material economic class. Then you will have attained class conscioussness.

Identity politics is rooted deep within the society and carries long traditions. Easy example is when german crusaders conquered eastern europe 1000 years ago. The upper class in each of those new german lands was german, and "working class", or peasants, were natives. The natives back then didn't even have a national identity, their sole identity was just that "it's our ancestors land" and nothing more. If they wanted to become the upper class, those peasants, they had to learn german language, fashion and manners, effectively becoming "germans" themselves.

I am saying here that when upper class is one identity, and working class is another identity, this means that this "another identity" will become the lower caste in society, a "nationality of slaves". Abolishing identity politics does nothing to change this fact, the upper class will always find a way to distinguish themselves from the lower castes of society. If not nationality, it would be "higher intellect" or "ideological purity", which was the case for soviets.

I truly believe that BLM can be radicalized, but something needs to be done about grifters like Deray, who try to coopt any movement into an opportunity to build his brand to post more Verizon sponsored tweets and give Wells Fargo funded talks.

Leftism stems from the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Always has, always will be. Owner and slave, Landlord and serf, master and journeyman, capitalist and worker.

All hitherto existing history is the history of class struggle.

The people focused on diversity and feels are liberals, not leftists.

We can recognize it exists in our own system, but we seek to abolish these distinctions that make anyone greater or lesser than anyone else. The only identity that matters to us because they're the cause of these other divides is bourgeoisie and proletarian. Once the bourgeoisie is dissolved, then these divides based on other identities can be phased out. Right now we recognize that race, gender, etc. is something porky uses to split the proletarian into groups of infighting rather than focusing its strength on him.

Fucking this.

The right try to stoke the flames of bigotry to create an other that they can use as a permanent scapegoat and permanent underclass.

The Dems will push Beyonce and Obama in the face of working class black people and tell them their struggle is magically over because a handful of black people were invited into the capitalist class.

Also important is that racism and sexism are not based on material considerations but purely on internal prejudice.

Class is important because it relates directly to the economy and peoples' means of subsistence.

You can't create an egalitarian society without changing the economy, whereas idpol issues can be resolved just by people changing their minds, with a small impact if any to their hip pockets. Porky loves channeling popular anger into idpol because it costs him nothing to come to terms.

Central planning to archieve socialism requires a state though.

Interesing JPG

No they didn't, but soviets conquered a bunch of other ethnicities and then started to mix them together to achieve some kind of post-nationalist society, which is not so different from what EU is doing, except that those swines are also having open borders too, in addition to mixing ethnicities.

You are confusing me here. How does one prevent mass immigration when you abolish the state, who is the only one responsible to protect the borders? Also, what does it mean that globalism and internationalism is not the same thing? Because If the difference is in how much outsourcing is taking place (more under globalism), I don't see what is so different in internationalism that they wouldn't exploit the third world countries for the trade of cheap commodities.

One could say that neonazis and libertarians both critique the liberals for many of their similar sins, but their alternative solutions are different like day and night.

Alright, I'll watch the vid

No shit. The state is a temporary tool in the project to build communism.

And who is to say that communism stays communism, if there is no state or army to protect the order of the society? I don't maybe even mean internal forces of opposition, but for example, China or North-Korea just rolling over the socialist communes, one by one.

Arabs and Mexicans are not ideal citizens for Germany or the US but the idea that this warrants fascism or nationalism is ludicrous. People should be given back property rights, they can decide who lives where. The immigrants are flooding to the technological-financial centers of the world, which is exactly what needs to be allowed to be destroyed.
Leftists acknowledge that blacks have been slaves, women hage been property and homosexuality has been a capital punishment. It points to capitalism as the cause of this. The Liberal Soc Dems are the ones who shill the sjw shit, they don't want the financial-tech destruction of the economy to stop. They are the ones who want welfare and special treatment for minority bougies.

Read the FAQ or stop posting this stupid shit

Nazbol, turd positionist Juchism/Gaddafi/Stalin is the fate of communism in any large nation

Ask yourself why mass immigration occurs: People immigrate from one country to another because they want a better life. They want freedom and economic benefits. Communism is understood to be a worldwide revolution in which capitalism has come to an end globally, as capitalism was a worldwide revolution that made feudalism come to an end everywhere. Until this has been realized there will likely be no absolute freedom of movement and abolition of borders. After this revolution both of these incentives for immigration will gradually disappear:

1. Democratic freedom will be a given in communist society, it is integral to it.

2. Economic exploitation will no longer take place, workers don't have to abandon their homes anymore because their countries' resources get plundered and material conditions deteriorate, they can take direct control of their living conditions and would likely only be forced to move in the case of natural disasters and so on.

Mind you, this is all idealistic. The realization of a global communist society will be something we likely won't experience anymore and we will be lucky if we see the beginning of it and it will be a gradual process in any case.

Globalism is generally used to talk about market globalism, which is a neoliberal concept and advocates for a worldwide free market. Communism seeks to abolish capitalism and is therefore fundamentally opposed to globalism. Internationalism stands for international unity – that is that communists all over the world, no matter their nationality, should come and stand together as communist, to abolish capitalism and realize communism. Outsourcing, exploitation for cheap commodities, those are all concepts related to capitalism.

By the way, the role the state plays in a socialist revolution is probably the main source of leftist sectarianism. Basically everyone has a different idea on how it should play out, which is why you won't find a clear answer to it.

☺ิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิิ

Doesn't explain still how does one protect the socialist world order without nazbol

So I understand, there is a consensus that the refugee crisis is the result of capitalism, and such things would never happen under socialism? Well, personally I think that a great deal of damage has already been done with neoliberalism, one example is ISIS.

I can't explain this very elaborately, so I use a metaphor: when you push the spring to contract itself, and then suddenly remove your hand, the spring does not retract to it's former shape, but it retracts in such manner it jumps to your face and hits you. When the capitalism would suddenly stop where it is right now, that would mean some backwards 3rd world country would righteously (maybe even in a poetically justified manner) roll over us, only that this would mean people like you and me have to die. I don't want to die.

I wouldn't want to attribute all the blame to capitalism, but yes, the material conditions of the people and imperialist intervention in the Middle East is generally understood to be the main driving force behind radicalization in the area.

I guess… I understand what you're trying to say? Capitalism would not and will not immediately come to a halt and even if class consciousness were to materialize in every country on this earth right now and the worldwide communist revolution would take place, it would take decades for the world to reorganize as to make complete freedom of movement possible.

I personally have to say that I support the idea of communities and communes that are self-sufficient, but I have a belief as well that without the state, there would be some gated communties in the hills that are getting filthy rich from no taxes, and 99% getting shafted by the public schools, hospitals, roads, police, fire fighters etc. pulling out, and quite obviously they would have very little knowledge of how to replace those instances without the government.

I am from Europe myself, and I see how government is the great equalizer here, and every time when EU dictates that government should pull themselves out from some rural community, that community immediately becomes a ghost town, since no young family besides pensionners wishes to settle in a place with no schools, hositals etc. (maybe in US it's different and there are plenty of private schools and homeschooling, but EU countries, all private schools are either have some strange religious/new age bent, or they are reserved for rich people that the middle class can't afford)

Private schools here are for the wealthy/upper middle class as well, most of the "affordable" ones being Catholic. There are WASPy private schools that are very expensive, no one who isn't very wealthy could go there.

You have to remember that concepts such as taxes, wealth et cetera are all results of capitalist organization of society. Zizek once said it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism and he would be right, we often make the mistake to imagine communism as an improvement of the current state of things, when in truth it has to be a completely new form of living.

But the worries you describe are all within the capitalist framework. Look at picture related, a gated community as you would describe it would be no danger or problem in a communist world, it couldn't even form since the base of society would be fundamentally restructured (not around the accumulation of capital, as it is now).

Also communism does not advocate for self-sufficiency or isolation of communities, but for direct democratic control of the people who make up those communities. A communist world will likely still have forms of democratic governance, but here again ideologies differ in how that should be realized.

Nope, it's pretty much the exact same here. It's not the EU, it's neoliberalism that chokes the life out of these rural communities.

maybe someone already pointed out ITT, but that's really broken logic. Marxism is not compatible with these things.

Are you perhaps hinting that in the communism you describe there is no currency as well?

I remember I once wrote an entire fictional novel for a competition where the story based around 5 orphans starting an anarchist commune, and how they are running it, but eventually, the government found a way to shut them down, since such a commune can't exist in a capitalism, for the sole reason that it drives down the market prices of the surrounding real estate in the district the anarchists are squatting at. In this book (I believe it was 180 pages) I tried to come up with fictional arguments for anarchism when they faced complete normies, but I found myself in some very tough positions, even after reading extensive numbers of materials, such as how does one organize certain assets provided by the government in a larger anarchist community, or how to keep the local economy stable without a currency? It always boiled down to the fact that some sort of currency is essential, some private property is essential, some regulatory body is essential etc.

Really? That's a shame. In my eurocountry we had 15 years of a right-wing neoliberalist party rule, who achieved that we moved from our national currency to Euro currency, but besides that, they impoverished many, many rural towns because "lololol let's pull de schools and post offices out of there because muh efficiancy when they all start communiting to the bigger cities instead" which ruined much of our country and now most of the small downs are full of alcoholics, old people and single moms. See, white people can do the whole poverty thing too when shit hits the fan, there is no saving grace from bad economy and neoliberalist politics even if you are white.

Simply look at the Stalin's posters. Many of them feature lots of non-whites. Clearly he advocated for "diversity" of the sorts.

*commuting

Those look like Mongolians. Do you realize how big the USSR was? It was an ethnically diverse country.

In Marx's Kritik am Gothaer Programm he developed the (meme) concept of labor bux and theorized that a communist world would do away with currency entirely. I tend to agree that it is possible in Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, but probably not as long there is a need to assign value to commodities.

Not in the sense it's pushed today. The USSR was a multi ethnic state, Russia alone is a multi ethnic state. The point very much was to sow solidarity between the different cultures, not to mix, and that is evident by the fact that the didn't. What would you suggest, then? Killing off the "shitskins" despite that the many republics were the native territory of these minorities?

It should be noted that the main ethnicity's culture (Russian) was the most predominant - history, identity and so on. In fact most minorities absorbed Russian culture, so territories (Baltics, Ukraine etc) were funnelled with Russians.

t. Russian

uhm.. you mean currency? Sorry, it's hard for me to grasp this concept, how it's different from a bank note currency..

Russia should fuck off from some of these territories, especially Chechnya (belongs to chechens), Kuril Islands (belongs to Japan) and some pieces of baltic clay.

Besides that, Russia should grant autonomy to many of their territories and let them do a lot more self-governing without the central government exploiting them, instead perhaps even pouring more money into them than they take if a successful community starts to pop up. Some form of federative segragtion is absolutely vital.

Russia is a multi-ethnic state indeed, but all in all, they expect their many ethnicities to learn russian and adopt russian ways in the end. I don't think that some tribes in Siberia should be stripped from their culture if they want to pracitce their way of life, and while Russia needs oil from those siberian territories and needs to play the stategic game where lots of their lands are buffer zones to protect main urban centers that are 90% russian, the self-governing autonomic republic wonderlands will never happen to the extent of like US states are related to US government (US states have their own laws, self-govern lots of things etc.)

OK now I was rambling again, my point was that I don't see how marxism is opposed to multiculturalism, ideas of ethnic diversity and open borders? Maybe it is, but I haven't seen an argument to propose this. USSR was hell-bent to protect russian national identity and had no open borders, yes, but that was related to how one rules over Russia. God knows, marxism in US could be very SJW'ish and would advocate the importing of so many 3rd worlders that even Bernie would be blushing.

they didn't*

oh, and OP, would you feel the same sentiment if it was mixing of white cultures or identities?

Wow it is almost as if Russia, the largest country in the world does not contain only one race in it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher

"labor bux" are like ration cards, but for commodities. the main difference is that these sorts of "currency" would reenter the system and be redistributed again to the people. you can gain currency under capitalism through sale, but you can only expend and earn back labor vouchers

false, the only thing they do is learn Russian, there is no push to erode ethnicities. The ethnic republics get their own language and other aspects that give them autonomy.

You westerns, in particular liberals and Holla Forums, seem to think that you can either live in some ethnically pure state or either push for maximum mixing.

diversity=/=mixing

It isn't opposed, it is neutral about this concept. And if it happens to be in porky's interest I.e. perpetuate capitalism then, guess what, it is.

That is not the reason it didn't have open boarders, it in fact accepted people who wanted to join. It simply did not push for arbitrary mixing or multiculturalism in the western sense.
Why would it? What benefit to socialism could 3rd world immigrants bring? Are you implying there is an initiative by anyone other than porky to keep immigrants flooding in?

Cheap labour?

Interesting concept. Why did it never get implemented in any socialist state in the world, though?

Yes, and… you are so close.

Reminder that if you support borders or controlling where people live and work then you aren't a leftist.

Workers have no nation and no country. Death to the bourgeoisie and their vile ideology.

Marxism has nothing to do with neoliberalism and an even greater focus on the emancipation of the working class from capital than anarchism, which struggles primarily against hierarchy in general.
'Sides, most Marxist states have historically been isolationist as fuck with borders welded shut. Hardly immigration magnets. The USSR was a multi-ethnic state because a ton of different ethnicities lived within its territories, and even then Lenin insisted on a federation where each cultural group got their own SSR.

and…?

why would there be cheap labor in socialism? who benefits from cheap labor?

these are not rhetorical questions btw

Come on, man. Socialism is not capitalism. Nobody gives a fuck about "cheap labor" since everyone gets compensated fairly for the labor they produce. There is no porky anymore to exploit the proletariat and the motivation to import cheap labor would disappear entirely.

It's not the best system and I can't think of a single example in the history of communism that sufficiently advanced towards a socialist society as to make it possible.

the mankind? the society? for "progress"?

Marx was only for global capitalism to the extent it would cause it's own destruction.

this user preceded me already

basically that

no porky=no drive for profit=no push for immigration

why would it be in the workers' interest for immigrants to take their jobs?

Nat cucks go on and on about the 'natural' devotion people have for their race and culture etc, but I guess that doesn't matter to brown people because apparently they're all chomping at the bit to leave their homes, friends, family, and so on and travel all the way to the other side of the planet and into an alien culture and climate just to destroy Western Civilization instead of staying in their native countries to improve their home

Really perturbs the ponderater if you ask me