Why were communist(deep-socialist) countries extremely nationalistic and patriotic, limited immigration and controlled borders, and expanded state power more than any country in the capitalist world?
If their ultimate goal was global solidarity and the abolition of the state how come the path they ventured on was the exact opposite of their goal?? while capitalist countries seem much more "globalist", multicultural, open to trade/investment, freedom of movement, easing up of borders, etc…
Read a book.
In answer to your question, it's because they were all M-Ls that followed the "Socialism in One Country" meme.
I'm reading a couple books atm though.
Don't you have to start that way though? Seems like the procedure to "get going" is paradoxical to the actual goal.
Because you confuse the end goal with the way to get there.
Being proud of being from a socialist country and wanting to defend your socialist country is good.
Uncontrolled migration isnt good for the wellbeing of a socialist society, because the world is not equal yet, and allowing anyone in will bring lots of problems, while allowing everyone out will lead to braindrain.
State power isnt "expanded" like you think it is. While it is true that some socialist countries had imposing control of their population (much like most of the world today, but less than, say, america), the state functions as a tool for the rule of the people in a socialist society. The state is defined as "a tool for class rule" for marxists, so expanding the state to suppress the bourgeoisie is not counter to socialism. Once the bourgeoisie is gone, the state is no longer a state, but a democratic body for coordination of society.
They are "globalist" because they want access to resources and labour and markets all over the world to increase their wealth.
Socialist states were very multicultural, and pretty much the only places in history that handled it well. Capitalist multiculturalism promotes division, not unity.
Not sure how this is an argument. Purchasing means of production is not socialist.
Gives the capitalists access to cheap labour without having to move their factories, and weakens the position of the organised working class. You cant organise when you are constantly forced to move by poverty.
You cannot have open borders without equality in the world, you cannot have statelessness until theres no more capitalism.
It was more to do with no being subverted by porky than with being invaded by muh foriegners
This. Having an economy independent of the first world seems to be a necessity
as opposed to shallow socialist?
Because if you are to have a "socialist country" of any kind then securing yourself against imperialist threat is crucial. Just about every effort at securing a state power to advance socialist aims has been sabotaged to total or near destruction by capitalist superpowers. Because of this patriotism and border control are invaluable. If revolutionary efforts were to spring up in multiple disparate places at once, nationalism is to surrender to the international effort in every case.
Heavy socialism needs strong community cohesion. If foreigners flood in and don't assimilate, then there are conflicts and these conflicts distract people from the rights of workers.
For instance you notice the wealthy in Western countries bring in tons of incompatible cultures of people. Huge numbers of people hate these migrants and are willing to completely end all the welfare and help for the poor just to get rid of them. The migrants all need welfare to survive. You can't go to a country with an incompatible culture, not speaking the language and having no money unless it pays you welfare.
Except none of that is even true. This is all caused by the natural process of capitalism destabilizing society. Right-wingers merely blame immigrants for it. And right-wing scapegoating doesn't end with immigrants, they'll go down a list of undesirables until they start blaming the social unrest on completely nebulous enemies like "Cultural Marxists" and Freemasons.
We should be attempting to unite the working class, not arbitrarily divide them on national lines (nations only serve the bourgeoisie).
so smart people prefer to leave and ply their talents in capitalist societies?
doesn't that partially justify bourgeois inequality
How? Millions of people a year flood in for the free welfare. Their cultures are hostile, they don't want to learn the language, and there's lots of clashes. The price of housing goes way up because countries get even more overcrowded.
In the USA, capitalism brings them in to lower labor. In Europe though they don't work and live on welfare. In Europe there's no capitalism to it.
Because Marxism - Leninism is trash and the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution.
The most influencial socialist state at the time funded most socialist projects that reflected the interests of the USSR's bureaucracy, that which was largely a actually reactionary worldview and was extensively authoritarian and isolationist.
It's not a reflection of the ideology innately as it was a result of concentrated power, the social strata at the time and the interests of the people at the top of said socialist states.
How does it feel to be objectively wrong?
Also, you can't claim that they're both messing up the job market and soaking up welfare and not working, Holla Forums.
No?
In Europe, they're largely not employed. Like in Germany, they only found jobs at the post office. They're very hard to employ.
I'm meaning the masses of people from the Middle East that came around since 2015. The ones who are mainly illiterate in their own language.
Because most people are already nationalistic, even most "lefty" liberals would never dare to question the legitimacy of the nation identity, as you can see pro-immigration liberals say that integrating immigrants is patriotic (not that new or subversive given that even Claudius thought chauvinism was dumb in his time).
In the face of counter-revolution, it's easier to let these ideologues play with flags than to liquidate them.
You can't achieve (virtual) post-scarcity if productivity per worker never increases, whilst overall work time could be have been reduced had more immigrants been accepted, this would not be fruitful to do so as long as output of goods also did not increase.
Also Immigration from capitalist 3rd world hell-holes would be akin to taking on the pollution of capitalism whilst you're still trying to develop your own. The socialists will then bear the cost whilst the capitalists get all the gain and have no incentive to change their behaviour because they can rely on emigration as a pressure valve.
There's no dignity in licking anybody's boot, whether it's the state owned one or your boss's one.
Also this suggests lessons can't be learned, that we can't do things differently, that we advocate this or that one needs to defend every single possible permutation of socialism.
I don't remember the Soviet Union overthrowing democracies for pineapples and bananas like the US did, what do you even mean by "solidarity"? Their foreign aid projects actually developed useful infrastructure where it was needed unlike Western countries to this very day using foreign aid as either a diplomatic tool to garner leverage for contracts on behalf of private industry or to directly benefit politicians themselves (my former MP Tony Baldry owns a stake in firm setup with British aid to dispense fishing licences in unrecognised Somaliland, other MPs owning stakes in private hospitals setup with foreign aid in the 3rd world too).
Nobody claimed such things didn't happen under capitalism.
You are equating capitalist exploitation with disinterested humanitarianism. capitalists don't invest in the third world out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they want to extract profit. They don't give a shit about the actual living standards of third world countries . After those countries have been devastated by capitalist exploitation, privatisations, and un payable debts, they become sources of cheap immigrant labor, used to drive down wages on the metropolis. But there is nothing humanitarian about immigration in itself.
Communists like to engage in nepotism whereas "capitalists" just want to get the job done.
Immigration is inherently anti worker. Nobody benefits from a larger (and cheaper) work force more than Porky does.
To defend from Imperialist aggression and counter-revolution. And historically speaking these measures certainly weren't unwarranted.
Some Marxists would argue that the sole purpose of the State is to articulate the dictatorship of one class over another, in a Capitalist state you have the dictatorship of the Bourgeoise, under Socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under Capitalism we have a one-sided class war against the Proletariat, under Socialism one-sided class war against the Bourgeoise for the express purpose of, at one point abolishing the class relation itself. If you want to understand this concept, as well as what went wrong along the way in the USSR I'd highly recommend you read Lenin's State and the Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution, and this link right here libcom.org