Nationalism and Third World Immigration

Was Jason right the whole time? The first world lives off the backs of the third and is causing environmental disaster. Imagine the refugee crisis we will see, unlike anything before, this will cause a rise in fascism given on how people reacted to the comparable tiny refugee/immigration numbers we have no

Fascism or barbarism.

Patriotism is a nice thing. Nationalism is trash, and dangerous. I oppose it in every level or form possible.
I don't support mass immigration, especially under capitalism. It's damaging to their countries, to them, to us, to our country.
Ubi is not socialist. You are from Holla Forums and have a normie tier understanding of left or socialism.
Take pic related, is a nice little dose of pinko pill to convice you to stay here and lurk moar, and that everything you learned from Holla Forums or /liberty/ is false. Welfare state is not socialism

stop posting this it's literally fucking Holla Forums's-idea-of-how-communists-think tier

Immigration should be motivated ethically, never economically. In the case of genocides, and wars countries should automatically accept refugees; in the case of extreme poverty, famines, drought and political instability, developed countries should organize aids (both in long and short term), and should allow to a certain extent immigration. This should be done on a continental scale (in this case Europe) in order to prevent ulterior destabilizations, which will be blamed on immigrants first and on morality itself second.

A very bad example of mass immigration is the Italian one (I'm italian myself), which was intensified so that the government could have cheap workers while the ONGs were profiting from North African human smugglers. The result is that most immigrants are now displaced (locked in the worst jobs that our society has to offer), any progressive value is now controversial and far right groups are now on the rise. For example this October to mimic the famous Mussolini's March on Rome, Forza Nuova supporters will march on Rome. This manifestation was prompted by a rape (the rapists were 3 North African guys) which was then overblown by media (they were extremely graphic, and you could find every possible pornographic detail of said rape on newspapers' front pages).

This is how immigration should not be handled.

Maybe because it's literally made to make them more open to the idea of communism? this meme exist only to make them lurk moar. But you are right, It should me modified

This is true, I can confirm. But it's also true that everyfucking country in europe is doing like us.
siamo anche un paese di centristi di merda, lo sai benissimo che qualsiasi cosa succede è sempre e solo colpa della "sinistra"

I'm actually against Third World immigration to the First, but not for the reasons Holla Forums is.

It's a known fact the First World benefits much more from having migrants from the Third World pour onto its soil since it has a cheaper labor source readily available AND, on top of it, Third World migrants reproduce at higher rates so they birth the proles of the future (hence reproducing capital).

It's also completely false to suggest most Third World migrants are the poorest of the poor. Usually it's the opposite: it's the most middle-class Third Worlders who migrate, since 1. they have the resources to do so which the actual super-poor of the Third World do not, and 2. they tend to be better educated than their fellow countrymen and leave their host countries because they can't find any work which meets their skill level. Someone in Ivory Coast who gets a university degree isn't going to want to stay there; they're going to want to ferry across the Mediterranean and come to France where they can (theoretically) put their knowledge to actual use. The problem with this from a Marxist perspective is, the Third World suffers massive brain-drain over time, and revolutionary potential is greatly hindered since there is no local intelligensia to fester socialist revolution. All of the future Maos, Ches, Sankaras, Nassers, and Mugabes are all lapping up the First World welfare state.

Hmmmm

He asked in good faith tho. tbh it's hard to have a good thread about immigration on this board, you should delete immediatly any post here that is bait Holla Forums, but op is here in good faith, let him be

How would you know if he's here "in good faith" or not? So far aside from the OP he hasn't been here at all.

Never heard this before and I'm compelled to think it's untrue.

The op seemed in good faith

Completely.
I don't care.

Yeah, the OP full of crypto pol bullshit definitely strikes me as being "in good faith."

not an argument

It's a known fact most of the Syrian refugees who cowardly left Syria rather than defend their homeland from imperialists were bourgeois or lower-middle class. That's why they were making such a ruckus over their conditions in refugee camps in Greece/Macedonia, dumped the food aid groups gave them, and made a huge deal about feeling "humiliated" and "ashamed" for having to be registered. Do you honestly believe these behaviors are that of the working poor and desperate, or that of spoiled brats? They trashed their camps and also villages because they felt ashamed about having to downgrade. I highly doubt legit Syrian proles (most of whom remain in Syria fighting FOR Assad) would behave that way.

The same can be said of Pakistanis in the UK, or even Poles in the UK (there's a reason why white Brits hate the Poles almost as much as their white supremacist asses hate Muslims). Same thing with the Moroccans and Algerians in France: real proles in those countries join left-wing groups and fight for communism whereas their diaspora populations join jihadi groups like Da'esh and fight for shariah/theocracy. Why? Because diaspora Maghrebis benefit off of the French welfare state and see their grievances not as the result of capitalism but as the result of the "western mind" or whatever anti-materialist bullshit Edward Said dreamed up (realize Said was an Arab porky too).

Emissions arre starting to decrease. We won’t go above 2 degrease Celsius. Also there’s Geo-Engenering

Even if this does happen (It won’t) I’d rather live in a desert then move to Canada and Sweden and live in an overcrowded city with over ten million people.

Third World/colonized peoples need to stay in their homelands and fight imperialism head-on. Running away to the safety of the West is only going to delay revolution longer.

You're mistaking social democracy for actual socialism. True, in higher-stage communism, people will take from the resource pool as they need, but in lower-stage communism, the idea of giving people resources indiscriminately won't apply; you'll need to work or be granted special permission if you want to eat or whatever. So rest assured that any immigrants who come will be required to give back.

Also, it's not like we necessarily want immigrants. It's just that we recognize that material pressure is put on them to immigrate; we could choose to raise the difficulty of immigration through violence, but such a strategy is less humane and has more unfortunate side effects than the alternative of eliminating that material pressure by ending capitalism and sending aid to build the required infrastructure in factories and alleviate the economic damage in the third world. The latter way allows the third world and thus the world as a whole to be more productive and allows us to accept those immigrants who wish to enter the West for immaterial reasons, ones who will undoubtedly contribute to the common good even if you think in limited terms such as country or community rather than globally.

Into the fucking trash

*infrastructure and factories, not infrastructure in factories
*environmental, not economic

This argument, however, is one about why one might prefer a socialism without nations rather than one with one, not an argument about why public ownership of the means of production within a certain geographic region is impossible or terrible, which always has confused me since every other leftist seems to agree it is impossible or terrible. Can anyone explain why exactly socialism-with-borders is bad in some way besides either morality or socialism-without-borders being better?

When people emigrate to first world countries, it's because they have the resources to do so instead of worrying about immediate needs.

Middle-class in this context means people from Mexico, China and Nigeria rather than people from truly starving countries. This is why the immigrants to Europe have smartphones. They are not middle class relative to europeans, of course, but they are not entirely destitute like people in Yemen or Somalia.

Surprisingly they also immigrate to South America. Europeans favorite place to move offshore is Uruguay

socialism isn't welfare

Borders and nation-states were created for the bourgeoisie to accumulate and centralize power and resources. Before the creation of the nation-state, there were communities and arguably city-states (which in themselves were associations of tradespeoples and merchants for mutual cooperation, not true states as we think them today).

There really is no point to borders under Socialism; It's not that it's good or bad but it simply is unnecessary under the new system.

You can't stop immigration because it's a consequence of the past 100 years of foreign policy, economic policy, and cold war action. The West has funded then what now became the very terrorist organizations terrifying people, just to oppose communism. They've exploited and ruined their economies. And most recently they let Syria and Libya collapse. For a number of reasons, all simple, and all equally complex, immigration won't stop. It will only increase with climate change ravaging these countries and their agriculture, their crop ruined.

It's a fools errand to just protect the very allies of the US Government from the consequences of its actions, simply because it will make everything worse.

Let the West reap what its sown, it's impossible to just stop.

Chaos Theory is always going to work its magic. And nowhere is it more deserved then the West for creating this situation in the first place.

What did she mean by this then?

Why are Asserists/Nazbols/3rd positionists in general banned and shunned then while market socialists/mutualists aren't?

that's a shame
anyway, its abysmal for the environment to extract people from the third world and give them first world consumption
populations of developed countries need to decline

Mutualists and market-socialists have arguments, and are willing to discuss. Even ancaps are bearable to some extent because they are open to discussion and base their view on materialism, even if on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Holla Forums migrants on the other hand are basically just driven by "muh globalist jewish conspiracy" and "NIGGERS R BAD" and it's impossible to discuss with them because they are deeply ingrained by pure ideology.

As an Icelander I think that we will have to harshly, but equally limit all immigration very soon. A cap per year regardless of country of origin.

In 2012 4% of the population were first generation immigrants, in 2017 it's 10%. We can't handle this, and maintain our language firstly and the culture secondly, my primary concern however is that Americans and such.will bring shit non-woke politics here.

The increase in immigration is actually mostly brought on by massive gains in the socialist project like the nationalization of the banks, sovereign money creation and so on.

The prosperity that socialist policies brings of course attract people. We are just about to vote on both a general decriminalization of drugs and the most advanced legalization of marijuana in the world, making weed essentially as legal as tomatoes. We can expect to get swarmed by Americans and others at that point.

I am pro-immigrant but srsly we cannot pretend like a country of 300.000 people can just take in 40.000 new people in 5 years without problems. Refugees are welcome but yeah Americans and Euros stop moving here pls.

Well this was enlightening, enjoy your estrogen pills though I'm sure that'll help the blue collar underclasses fight the corporations.

Socialism =/= Govermiint stüff

I agree with you that it's impossible to discuss to people that genuinely believe in conspiratorial drivel or race realism as they don't give one iota about the truth, but what about those folks who admit they have an arbitrary preference towards people with the same language/general cultural background/skin color as them and would prefer a community of/be more willing to fight for such people? They're obviously not acting completely rationally, but why exactly is irrationality in this instance such a killer that they have to be banned and shunned instead of tolerated and hopefully one day convinced to embrace solidarity?

Globalism is more important than any other political issue.