Is open borders part of your branch of leftism?

Because capitalism has a historical function that it has not yet completed.

Did you mean to wear the tankie flag?

No.

You cannot have open borders while there is no economic equality in the world.

No.
Armed border guards and minefields are.

I'm pro-open borders because I'm an accelerationist

Spooky as fuck. Stalin didn't invent a new science, and capitalism has one function we barely need anymore.

Honestly they should be let in so they get mad that the first world countries are not the pot of gold and then can be radicalized.

Also
:^)

Which is?

what do you mean "has not yet completed"? We have the technology already to take care of most human needs, I don't see how capitalism is necessary anymore.

If we keep expanding the state until it becomes truly universal in a way that it suppresses private interests, then we have won.

I do think that social democratic parties in the west have lot to learn form China.

This is true.
But also, they're the working class, and an injury to one is an injury to all.

Maybe that's your utopian vision liberal, but it's not mine.

Historical material analysis is the opposite of spooky. Learn a new word.

The creation and maintenance of productive forces which will eventually enable a post-scarcity society. Socialism cannot be brought out in a backwards agrarian shit hole.

I guess all those billionaires did a lot of bootstrapping.

Stalinist "science" saying we need capitalism forever is very spooky though.

...

They don`t control the economy, the party does.

Socialism doesn't require post scarcity and not every region of the world needs to undergo the model of western European development. Read Marx.

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol08/no10/marx-zas.htm

...

And the Party is made up of Billionaires and the friends of Billionaires.

Good thing I'm not a Stalinist then.

In theory: sure, if we could all spontaneously agree to abolish capitalism and replace it with completely cooperative economies. But that's not going to happen. Capitalism has to collapse due to structure; not agency. It will create the material conditions necessary for its own replacement.

I heartily agree on both points, but as I understand it we're talking specifically about borders in our own countries, no? And in that case, i.e. the developed West, I don't think socialism will come about until capitalism has run its course.

Dissidence form the party line ends up with capital punishment. It is irrelevant if there are few rich people when they can`t leave the country, go against the party nor impose any other kind of agenda to against the national interests. They are mere puppets for the party.

agreed

This. Travel is fun. Lines and paperwork are lame.

No, No Fucking NO

Settle down, Buster Brown.

...

That’ll still cause cultural shift in the host country.

It's pretty funny how national interests seem to favor the wealthy. It's almost as if the party and congress are filled with wealthy individuals.

There’s nothing wrong with left-wing nationalism.

Except the part the left wing half gets shot by the nationalist half.

...

Aside from being as retarded as any other form of nationalism.

That isn’t happing in Rojava, Bascue Country, Catalonia, Ireland, Scotland, or Whales.

It's not anarchism.

National liberation is not the same as nationalism.

Most forms of leftism isn’t anarchism. Anarchist only make up a small part of the left.

Never said there the same.

...

Lifting 300 million form poverty to middle-class in few decades has a tendency of creating self-made men.
Laws and policies in china make formation of actual corporations impossible, limiting their influence to even lower standards than in Putin`s Russia. Mergers of all larger companies and corporations into state owned ones also helps, along the limitations on ownership of land.

Well the only one really applicable is Rojava, which has incredibly anti-nationalist undertones for a group of people that want to establish their own nation. Effectively anyone that wants to fight for it becomes a national.

Ireland is pretty amusing since the leftist republicans spent most of their time killing each other.

This, most commies are ML

Most things aren't good. I agree.

Why do you people pretend like you have anything to do with marx or lenin, when you clearly don't?

lol, what do you mean?

...

Let me correct myself, party made men who are expected to show certain level of loyalties to their patron.

National liberation presupposes nationalism in the first place. Once you acknowledge the existence of nations as social entities, and acknowledge that they can have responsibilities, rights and priorities then you've accepted the most basic assertions of nationalism.

It's Stalinism, not Marxism, and not Leninism.

Stalinism is a term made up by leftcoms and trots. Leninism is the same as ML.

No

...

Trotsky at least did, in the 1920`s.

Fuck off, anarkiddie.

Nationalists go home.

Wow, that's a first: I've been called both a Stalinist and an anarchist in the same thread. I must be doing something right.

open borders would mean no borders
closed borders would mean you aren't able to leave your country, like north korea

the truth is in the middle both in terms of what's best
and in terms of what's real in the world

If the only differens between Leninism and ML is Socialism in one country then they really aren't that different. Besides, what's wrong with socialism in one country?

Yeah, I just don't really respect the opinion of "Rojava is nationalist because they want to create their own state. They shouldn't call it a state!"

There's no socialism involved, for one.

Education and integration of immigrants can combat some of the worst exploitation, but a larger work force will still increase competition for jobs, and thereby decrease market value of labor. The only way to efficiently combat that in a market economy is by creating more jobs.

to a degree yes. I'm one of the workers in my country, so any policy that will hurt my group news for me personally. I lived several years in a area where inhabitants where 90% non-western immigrants, and while I enjoyed some aspects of this, there is little political awareness in the community and most of them are socially reactionaries. If we can influence them to become socialist, then great, I'm all for it, but as it stands I'm not sure immigration does anything but hinder my cause.
.

The OIRA, INLA and their splinters did most of the infigthing rather than the Provos. Sinn Fein aren't worth a fuck anymore and I don't see myself registering to vote anytime soon, maybe if they can wrangle a border poll with a chance of winning for shits n giggles.

National liberation is shit unless it's far left, parties with vague mentions of socialism and anti-imperialism will just end up as bourgie centre-left cunts in a slightly improved status quo, not worth dying for

xi jinping has a net worth of >300 million dollars

As an Irishman you ought to be particularly aware of the benefits of national liberation, even if it's bourgeois. Dublin had the worst slums in Dublin at the start of the 20th Century. 30 years of national self-rule brought electricity, literacy and an end to tuberculosis. Life under the national ruling class is infinitely preferable for all members of society than life under a non-national empire.

Only once we have created a global socialist state.

t. read the manifesto and thinks he is an expert

And the glorious leader of DPRK has lot more in mineral wealth that is yet to be liquidated.

True but the Provos weren't explicitly leftist, were they?

"Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.”

Idealism

I'm not a Marxist.

Because in a modern economy with scarcity of resources, anything but capitalism with socialist principles is retarded. Unless we become a post scarcity society (which is possible with automation), communism and anarchism are utterly retarded. And unless we preserve our current economies, we'll never get to that point. All open borders does is make is dependant on Chinese/ Mexican Labour, which will give us no incentive to automate.

...

PPK Is pretty nationalistic.

*PKK

correction; and Keynesian principles. It's been a while since I've read engels, was it him or keynes who argued that return of investment is faster for governments? That's what I mean, nationalised industries(healthcare, public transportation, banks, etc.) But still a capitalist society with borders (basically borderline tankie, except tankies are retarded.)

No, fuck open borders.

...

Why are black flags so fucking retarded?

...

lel?

Walls.
Gulags.
Fields.
Holes.
Ovens.

Get your passport and visa then you can come in.

...

Well if the working class becomes reactionary creating socialism will be impossible. And mass migration create a reactionary working class.

Yes.

Because anarchists are fucking retarded. They're smart enough to know something is wrong with the system, but to fucking retarded to realize that they're just as retarded.

I want to travel unrestricted, live in my van, and eat strange foods from all over the world.
Borders make this very difficult for a little lumpenprole like me.

Borders are made up, they're not a part of the earth.

capitalism creates mass migration

This isn't the 1800s anymore. The type of mass migrants coming in now aren't at all interested in preserving the traditional norms of the host nations, and they also overwhelmingly support vaguely leftist policies. Who exactly is this reactionary working class? Because if you're going on about muh working class whites, they're done. They had one last hurrah with trump, and all trump has done with that "win" is piss all over them and prove that he was neo-con filth all along. They're completely disenfranchised, and in the 2020 elections you'll see whites stay home in record numbers.

Yet the vast majority of people believe in them and will attempt to enforce the standards onto others, making your ideas nothing but an infantile and obvious hindrance to actual discourse.

I can just subvert their authority, or negate it. I don't give a fuck.

Yeah, precisely. But the majority of people believe in them to the point of engaging in violence, and considering the world has been full of people like you for years telling them it doesn't matter you need to realise you won't be the one that enlightens them.

Anyway the reason I'm arguing with you is because I think borders should be dismantled after economic overhaul, because doing it before hands over the New Jews on a plate to the fascists.

provide 1 example where anarchism has worked.

...

I can still actively work against them even without trying to convert people.
Anyways I think the best method is to dismantle them during the revolution, I mean, the revolutionary society itself should organize on anarchist lines which would imply not having closed borders or risk co-option like we've seen in state socialist countries or socdem parties.

Provide one example of a successful capitalist society.
In the year 500ad.

...

Well your desire to travel and shit can be done with passport, and what if the people in the areas you travel to don’t want you there?

Can't be done nearly well enough with a passport and six thousand dollars a year.
On top of that, fuck them if they don't want me there, I'm just passing through.

Humans are tribal creature. They want there “tribe” to be intact. Anarchists don’t realize this.

:v)

You don’t have the right to pass through. Travel is a muh privilege the people in the area you travel to give to you. You clearly haven’t lived in an area where the nature has been ruined by tourists.

No one has the right to claim land as theirs.

Except the people living there.

I want to do what I want, not what I have the "right" to do, and I'm not a primmie, nature is useful not sacred.

I support open borders, but I'd support Bernie over Hillary because economic matters are more important.

Again you don’t have the right do what you want to do. Rights are to be restricted when necessary. When tourists ruin the area you live in talk to me again.

I won't enter your house. I will enter your peninsula.

Well if the people living in said peninsula say you can’t be there you will be kicked out.

You don't have the right to stop me either, because rights don't exist, and I'm not one to agree with being restricted.

I was talking about individual rights, not collective rights.

And I will attempt to enter anyways.
This conflict will be solved one way or another, and the fact it's up to them and I to do it is a good thing.

Still not real.

You haven’t seen the land you live in be destroyed by tourists. You don’t have unlimited rights. If people living in a place say they wan’t to kick someone no from there out, they can do so. Disagreeing with this is going against democracy.

Then violence will be used against you. Laws have to be enforces.

Fucking Individualists, thinking that there rights can’t be limited.

I figure they'd come up to me, and we'd have a verbal disagreement, because a community that reacts violently when someone in a van drives into town wouldn't last very long and I would be unlikely to find one.

Nature is not important. An isolationist community with large scale production requiring what it does is doomed to failure.

Try it.

You cannot be a nationalist and a communist. Take a seat at the left wing of capital.

NO BORDERS
O

B
O
R
D
E
R
S

Open borders but castrate the men like the muslims used to do to male slaves.

Letting in more people doesn't always improve circumstances.

Consider a subideal lifeboat analogy.

Lifeboat capacity is 25 people. You let in 15, it's great for them because there's room. You let in 25, it's at capacity, it's okay, you let in 30, it's very crowded now but whatever. You let in 40, you're still arguably up because even though the boat is now half-sunk everyone is cold and wet and miserable - but 40 sad lives rescud is better than 25 comfortable lives, unambiguously.

You let in 50, the boat capsizes and everyone drowns, you're essentially back where you started with no lifeboat.

It's a terrible analogy obviously, but a similar situation of diminishing returns does arise. Especially because retaining certain elements of the welfare state (in particular education) does actually help to push ahead solutions that will help everyone in the long run. It's better to have a few Britain's to drive forward high-technology research that can later be put to just application then have a world full of mid-tier living standards that never come together to achieve this.

That and in a more social democratic mood I unironically hold the position that living standards for working class of western countries should never regress, only that other countries should come forward. (though i emphasise that's living standards: consumption is going to have to fall.)

Yeah if you're fine with being on the left wing of capital

countries aren't lifeboats. It's possible to reallocate resources and increase production in order to accommodate larger populations. (Unless you're living under capitalism of course, then you can't do that if it's unprofitable)

I mean there's an underlying implication here: open borders wouldn't destroy capitalism.

No gods no masters no borders no walls!

No spooks. Spooks as in black people

The goal is to sink the fucking lifeboat (the bourgeois state).

the lifeboat isn't really the state, it's a fixed arbitrary marker for improved standards.

open borders will not destroy capitalism or even the state (the state will doubtless be transformed, even to the extent that her powers are now exercised by transnational corporations - but not destroyed.)

the point of the analogy was more like "We need to arbitrarily elevate certain segments of the population to develop high-technology solutions to our problems, etc." and doing so by retaining national borders has the greatest expedience.

i mean i guess it doesn't matter, the international porkycorpostate gang will want to build big rockets to ensure their survival when earth collapses regardless.

Am I the only one worried about Islam? Immigration from South America is fine, they already have much of the framework needed to transfer into a society undergoing transformation to a socialist state, same with China and some places in Africa but Muslims seem extremely reluctant to kick their opiate.

Religion will necessarily wither away in Communism.

I mean if you stick with the analogy: Why?
That just means everyone dies.

Right, but isn't it easier to dilute rather than just waiting for it to happen? Just because something good will happen, that doesn't mean we shouldn't help it along. It feels like it would be quicker in the long run to disperse and dilute instead of chipping away at something, let them slowly sink in rather than just attacking future comrades.

capitalism didn't exist in 500ad, that was feudalism, nowhere near anarchism either.

"Fuckin leftists we need open borders to import muh child sex slaves (mongoloid sound)" - every ancrap

Ayncaps want closed borders you dumb cuck. Ask any ancap about immigration and they will start whining like a nazi about muh gommunist muslims and muh NAP.

Uncaps aren’t really anti-immigration, because there ideology provides no ability to enforce borders.

Fuck open borders. No borders.

A ideology based on the worship of property and racism doesn't have the ability to enforce borders?

yes

this, what's so hard to understand about this on a leftist board?

I mean, the current capitalist system is really good at making sure people pour their efforts into useless things and produce less useful things than are possible, but even if capitalism were to be undermined there is a limit to what can actually be produced in terms of food, medicine, and shelter in any given area. Open/no borders with a limited amount of socialist/communist areas will mean that those areas will quickly surpass their limits and collapse, so such areas would either have to go full Trot and engage in wars of liberation/expansion, go ML/Nazbol and actually have borders until the rest of the world has their own revolutions, or quickly collapse.

Out of those solutions, I prefer the ML/Nazbol one.

spooky

No.

Unless NazBol takes over the entire planet and kills everyone I don't like.

Wat. If anything it's the opposite, no borders = unlimited wage and debt slaves. Nice job, useful Wall Street idiot.

Without border guards you can’t enforce borders. The only way rot have border guards is by having a state. And Ancaps are anti-state.

I believe that ancaps claim that in an ancap world there would be no need for borders and that immigration would not be an issue, but since in our current world immigrants tend to be more collectivist than individualist they oppose immigration simply because it politically weakens them. So if the immigrants were all ancaps they would supposedly gladly welcome them.