Quick question from somebody on the far right of things

You guys realize that nation isn't synonymous with a state, right? Nations exists since thousands of years. By saying you are against "nations" you are answering OP's point by just wanting a single, multicultural nation.

If the only way we can get Socialism started in the West is ethnic-nationalism, that's fine, but ideally that would only be a transitory phase.

Not that political. Go here for different take

Abolishing the bourgeois nation state doesn't mean you'll be forced to live with black people. Check out Stalin's Marxism and the National question.

...

Not really true. If history had gone differently it's quite possible that a person who in our timeline considers himself an Italian might have considered himself an Austrian, or a Venetian. Identity does shape material conditions, but material conditions shape identity.

Italians are white? Since when?

I don't think our current understanding of race, or at least mine, should be imposed onto the past since the context has changed due to globalization. I'm not an Anglo American in 19th century so I don't feel a need to rationalize their views.

I'll just say this. Seemingly everybody seems to know who the white people are except white people themselves.

I care and I could list several reasons, but if you're conscious of the world around you then you should be able to tell that everything is getting worse for everybody except the rich who operate largely outside of society anyway, so it's only them who can say "who cares?".

My point is that current western society agrees with your opinion, and it's shit.

The idea of a nation didn't exist until 300 years ago

wew lad
read a fucking book you maniac

That really doesn't matter. Definition of a nation from Stalin:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm
According to this, nations can be identified since the Neolithic Revolution.

Nations, like the nuclear family, are recent inventions.

They're shit and they should be abolished.

Well if daddy stalin says it then it must be true

That's factually untrue. Nation is a fucking Latin word and it still means more or less the same thing, whereas the etymology of state is completely different (deriving from the Latin word status).

Not an argument.

The idea of a nation-state has been invented, and the categorization of national identity has shifted as well, in legal or even racial categories.

Do you have an actual argument against his definition?

rofl lmao xddddd

The idea of "homogenous nations" are reactionary bullshit. There is nothing more to add.

I share the fear that exclusionary policies could lead to more exclusion, but I feel that it must be done regardless. I'm not a moralist in that sense, I don't care about other people, just my own. Let's not pretend that the outside world would stop existing if the west were to stop accepting third world immigration. There would still be external pressure to remain competitive militarily, and economically, so we can't "purity spiral" into madness.

You oppose the idea of using state power to enforce my views so I'll remind you that currently it's the state that enforces laws specifically against my views. There is no freedom of association, I'm left with no other option except seize state power.

nazbol is a meme
Just like Bordiga and Bookchin, take everything here with a grain of salt.

A baseball team is also "formed." And no, the common idea of the nation as we currently tend to refer to it wasn't around in Antiquity.

So say you got your "ethno state?" Then what?

Odd, since they had a term for it that fits our definition exactly. You are conflating the existence of nations with the ever-changing nation identity. What's new is that you aren't seen as part of the nation when you hold a wrong passport, or have the wrong skin color. This obviously didn't happen in antiquity, or at least not extremly marginally.
I don't see how this is possibly an argument since there is more to that. When you look at the checklist Uncle Joe has provided, you can, for example identify Greece as a nation, quite clearly, or rather: Recognize there is a Greek nation. In case of Catalonia, for example, you'd have a harder time arguing that there is a Catalon nation.

this is always the justification for 'diversity', but is there *anything at all* that suggests its actually true?

*at least extremly marginally

Why does any discusion of this subject on Holla Forums have to end up being pure semantics.

I don't give a fuck if your nation is homogeneous, but I'm not going to go out of my way to preserve it.

we're kinda working on that

This. Who the fuck cares? Stop being so spooked.

Why is it that you dimwits don't understand that words have multiple definitions? This retard class cuck doesn't seem to understand either.

It's pretty telling that you brainlets are ignoring the question of what your plans are once you have your ethnostate.

Open borders, no compromise.

The main justification for diversity is that it's immoral to marginalize people with spooks like borders.

We sit down and hash out the details.

I don't believe any of you are stupid or evil, we can work together to make the world a better place.

I should add that this is under capitalism - of course, borders will necessarily dissolve under Communism. Under capitalism, it is still our moral duty to promote immigration so that marginalized people from the global South can earn a better life, and so that they can be radicalized into revolutionaries. This is of course a point on which we agree with liberal capitalists, but for different reasons.

Not if we fundamentally disagree what makes the world a "better place". Your ethnostate idea does nothing to improve people's lives.

Multiculti is a destructive

even stalin recognized that

we don't want to be like brazil

Socialists should advocate for international solidarity, to help develop the countries which are the origin points of migration waves, not actively encourage ethnic displacement so capitalists can exploit even cheaper laborers

Whether or not nations are transhistorical is not fucking semantics.

If you actively promote mass immigration you promote unemployment, miserable working conditions, racial tensions, ghettoization, brain drain and muscle drain. To want to give people from the global south give them a chance to develop and resist imperialism.

*You want to help people from the global south*

This. Exclusionary nationalism furthers capitalism, whereas diversity even under capitalism benefits marginalized peoples, relative to exclusionary nationalism at least. It's all about the greater good and increasing the number of potential revolutionaries.

Borders are themselves anti-solidarity and a form of marginalization of victims of imperialism, a form of marginalization in which all natives in rich imperialist nations share collective guilt.

Miserable for who? The global poor gain by more than the natives of rich countries lose, and they already have blood on their hands anyway. besides, immigrants can be radicalized.

Also, the global South is on the move whether you want it to be or not, and no one who calls themself a Communist should support a deportation unless it's a fascist/imperialist to a gulag.

The thing is, immigration actually doesn't help them. Their home country looses a good amount of young, capable men (as the really poor are often not able to emigrate), you inevitably promote human trafficking in which results in hundreds of migrant deaths, and in the end you create a new milieu of lumpen proles, as none of them are equipped to compete on a labor market which has jobless western academics.

If you radicalize migrants you will cause a right-wing backlash. You are better off supporting a communist guerilla movement in the Third World. Almost every country has one of them. Go send them money.

If it doesn't help them why would they be immigrating? Also, Communists should be creating organizations to bring more immigrants that they don't suffer violence en route to new countries.

Good, so radicalize them.

Good, the enemy has been identified. Bash them.

What's wrong with my vision of people living in their own countries among their own kind working to better their own communities? I'm sure you know that our current immigration policy tends to favor the most skilled individuals, enticing them with money, and robbing their communities of people who contribute.

Let's be honest here, countries where race mixing was encouraged have all deteriorated into shit. Combine that with imperialism and these people will never be prosperous.

I'll make myself clear, I don't want the status quo, I don't want to fight wars on behest of other nations, and I don't want to rob other nations of their talented human capital or even resources.

I know some of you believe that it's possible to unite the world under one ideal, even by force if you have to, but that's impossible because of people like me. I'm not altruistic enough to commit suicide.

What I want is possible.

So… if you fundamentally disagree and are not willing to budge an inch then accelerationism is the only option. I've made this point before, things are getting worse every day, the current state is not natural, and it will only lead to conflict.

You can't spend the last 400 or so years making landgrabs in the Americas and Africa then wonder "b-b-but where my ethnostate?? T_T".
Greed and capitalism led the world to this. Never forget it.

It's exclusionary, and promotes racism and thus reaction.

This. Right-wingers crying about immigrants and Muslims have plenty to own up to in their own countries' histories and still support the imperialist system today through tax dollars. They owe it to the global South.

That's what's wrong with it. We're all the same species, you idiot. If you make a state of some vague "white identity" that won't get rid of racial tensions, you'll just start arguing about what "white" means.

If you had ever lived in a 'homogenous' parochial conservative society yourself, you would know that it fucking sucks and want to get out of that narrow minded shithole asap

Yes

Correct

It's a waste of resources with little justification other than "muh white nation" …

Even the attempts throughout history to establish "homogeneous" states has been an epic failure

except its not. you wouldn't be saying htis kind of shit if OP was afroplasm lmao. comments like this make /lp/ seem like Holla Forums but only with slightly less retardation

No, that sounds like a terrible idea to me. If you have the resources to do this shit, then you should rather go into their respective countries and help them there, instead of damaging them by abducting their workforce.
If you are smuggling migrants into your country you are confirming the reactionary parody image of the left. You won't have just right-wingers against, almost everybody will be against you. They aren't "enemies", they will be workers who see their wages drop because somebody from the Third World will do the same job for even less.

That's porky's fault for exploiting immigrants, not their fault.

There are a lot more marginalized third-worlders than there are natives to rich countries. If they get angry about their wages going down, they need to become a Communist, or if they become a fascist they need to be bashed.

If "everybody" becomes a fascist then so be it.

I am a Native American that speaks English as his only language. Not a single solitary syllable of the Carolina Algonquin language exists anymore and hasn't for hundreds of years. You drug us kicking and screaming into your world to feed your lust for land and resources. You can't just kick me out of this society now that you have your shit and you're bored of me. There is literally nowhere for me to go. Our peoples are intertwined until the last days of humanity. You will never, EVER have your ethnostate as long as people like me exist. So to call for your ethnostate is a call for genocide. You killed us until we succumbed to your society, but you wont have the ability to kill us out of it.

Okay then let's flip the script, if you're so intent on inclusion where does it end? I won't budge on my convictions, off to the gulag with me? How many people will you gulag before the fucking system collapses like it always has under authoritarian rule?

You can't change human nature, people will always disagree, so the best you can do is you create conditions where compromise is possible. You'll have a much easier time compromising with somebody like you, like me.

You bet.

As many as necessary.

There is no human nature, this is a pure bourgeois lie to justify capitalist relations.

Racists should be identified and gulag'd. It is useless to discuss anything with them.

When the masses turn fascist you can't bash them. It's game over for you. The west has a history of turning to fascism instead of socialism when in crisis. There is no guarantee that this policy will not 100% backfire on you (and it already does). Realpolitik doesn't work like this. Again, if you want to help more substantially, go to the Third World and help. Doesn't have to be a communist guerrilla where you risk your life, you could just join a NGO which drills wells or something.

Yes, you can. This is where the immigrants come in. Once a critical mass is reached and the contradictions lead to a collapse, a revolutionary coalition of immigrants and native allies can be lead against fascists.

gulags are exclusionary by nature

Yes, the idea is to exclude fascists, not marginalized peoples.

Advocating for inclusion doesn't entail impinging on people's autonomy, advocating for segregation does. It's really not that hard of a concept. It's like getting mad at not being able to murder, you're kind of incompatible with society if you can't not murder people just like you're incompatible with society if you can't live reasonably around people you might dislike.

Heya Holla Forums whatcha doing'?

but you're marginalizing fascists

Exactly. Anyone should be able to live wherever they want. This is why borders are an inherently fascist concept - the whole point is to exclude people who want to live in our societies in order to enrich ourselves at their expense through the capitalist imperialist system.

I certainly would, and I think you're unintentionally revealing your own personal biases here.

In-group preference is a powerful force, and today it's largely used negatively, but I think that any significantly large homogeneous society could focus that into bringing about socialism. From there, it would be in their rational self interest to spread their successful model elsewhere to best preserve peace and world resources. I'm not saying this is the only option to bring about socialism, not by a long shot, but to me it appears to be one of the options with a reasonably high chance of success, and with the least amount of bloodshed.

Hardly a Holla Forums fantasy.

The word fascist has a meaning, user. Stop being retarded.
Wrong. The entire point of borders is to restrict the free movement of workers so that capitalists can more easily exploit people.

How can you have a homogeneous Germany when Bavarians are more similar to Austrians than Berliners or Hamburgers, a homogeneous France when Bretons feel closer to the Irish than Parisians and Lyonnais, Alsatians to Germans, Corsicans to Italians, and Basques to no one. Same thing with the Flemishs and the Walloons, or the Hungarian enclave in Romania, etc.
Look at what is happening now in Catalonia. Madrid don't want to let them go because it's not in the interests of the Spanish nation as a whole to end up with a weaker economy. Nations are anything but homogeneous, and nationalism destroy the diversity of human cultures.

The post read like what a Holla Forums user thinks leftists believe. It was way off the mark. Especially with the whole "heightening contradictions" bullshit

When there is a crisis, which will inevitably happen at some point in the future due to the contradictions of capitalism, there will be a fascist reaction against immigrants. The key is to have enough immigrants so that the coalition of immigrants and native allies can win. It's not that complicated. The Holla Forums fantasy is more like an Islamic revolution, isn't it?

Why are so many capitalists agitating for open borders, then? This makes them useful idiots for us, and should be used to our advantage.

I don't want to kill anybody, it seems that you do. I think you're naive to think that most people would agree with you. I understand that you seem to think your way of thinking is the majority but it's not, may I remind you who's the the US President now? It's a guy who openly dog whistled to "ebil nazis" like me.

I don't want to get all big brained here so I'll just ask this question because it's equally as stupid as your assertion. If a stranger showed up at your door asking for a place to stay would you let him in? Actually forget that, why have a door in the first place.

What if there were no nation states, but instead regions or whatever smaller kind of polity and then for example Bavaria would say that they won't let in any muslims anymore, because they don't want bavarian culture to be destroyed by them?
The whole immigration problem has absolutely nothing to do with the nation state itself.

All fascists are murderers, so you're wrong. Exclusion is in itself an act of murder in that it causes the deaths of millions of third-worlders who could be living a better life. Opposing Communism is murder for similar reasons.

So what? Into the gulag they go.

Nations aren't a house you fucking fascist, they're a bourgeois fiction used to further imperialist relations that kill millions of people.

If Bavarian culture is based on exclusion then it should be destroyed.

actually i want to be more like brazil tbh

Every culture is based on exclusion

Then "culture" as a concept that is unique to a particular group itself should be destroyed as part of the movement that abolishes the present state of things - there should be only a common culture of humanity under global Communism.

We're going to kill all culture on this fucking planet. We're going to kill the idea of culture. We're going to erase the history of culture. That's the culture I want.

i get the feeling you've done precisely no research into the subject

Stop LARPing as a leftist. This isn't how regular leftists talk. Protip if you want to be more convincing: if you're gonna mention capitalism's tendency towards crisis make sure to mention the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Assuming that immigrants will naturally be drawn to leftist politics is retarded. Social movements happen when people organize themselves, it's not rocket science. Leftists could just as easily organize with white people as they could with brown people. Protip if you want to be more convincing: Leftists aren't as concerned with demographics as the right is.

Are you going to force the indigenous amazonas tribes people to abandon their way of life, too, then?

Wow, it's almost like a country isn't the same as a person's personal property! Shit analogy, faggot

breaktime to help avoid thread deteriorating into slapfight

Yes, but unfortunately we live in a world where shitholes exist.

And how do you plan on rebuilding after you've killed off all but your immigrants and "allies"?
For (R), depressed wages, for (D), more dependent voters.

It seems to me that you're not even willing to keep a peaceful solution on the table, and are instead advocating for full-out demographic replacement and essentially a race war, which leaves me to believe that the other poster had you pegged correctly as a Holla Forumsyp.

Everyone on here knows the mechanism by which TPRF leads to crisis, though. Is this really necessary to mention every time?

Well, they certainly aren't going to be on the side of the fascists who will want to kill them. You're either a Communist or a fascist sympathizer when this time comes.

It's only about demographics insofar as some demographics are currently engaging in most of the imperialism and others are mostly the victims of it.

Who the fuck cares? Culture isn't a static fucking thing, and furthermore culture is inherently self-differentiating. You don't need state sponsored exclusion to have culture, faggot.

The Mexican EZLN didn't cry about it

You've clearly never visited Holla Forums. 90% of them are self-hating brown people, lmao.
This is just factually incorrect, and this mentality is more than a little paranoid/retarded
Wrong. Fucking hell, I think Marxism-Leninism is dumb as hell, but if you're gonna be a ML actually understand that shit first. Imperialism isn't related to demographics in the slightest.

What's so bad about exclusion to begin with? Just because a community doesn't want to invite every asshole to live with them doesn't mean they are "immoral" or whatever

I have no issue with groups of people excluding others on an interpersonal level. My issue is with state being used to systematically exclude groups of people.

Who knows? Marx himself was reluctant to speak about the details of Communist society. If immigrants decide to join the fascists for whatever reason due to religion, capitalist sympathies, or whatever, then they should get the same treatment as any other reactionary. My reasoning is that it's more likely for them to support leftist politics due to ongoing marginalization.

it doesn't make much sense for politicians to advocate open borders if borders help capitalists marginalize workers. They know what's good for their bottom line. The difference here is that it's also good for Communists.

A peaceful revolution is not going to happen.

The major imperialist countries are mostly Western, though.

So if a community says they don't want third world immigrants to live in their community, the state shouldn`t be allowed to force it on them anyway and override their basic democratic decision, am i right?

In a catastrophic scenario where you and your people needed shelter or whatever you would be on your hands and knees praying that other groups don't think like you.

There's no state under Communism.

in the U.S. they are considered white - and if that seems at all weird to you it should be a clue as to how arbitrary these classifications are

You're being intentionally retarded, aren't you? Firstly you're not questioning why the immigrants exist in the first place, which is the constant war being waged in their countries.
Secondly you're ignoring the possibility of solving the situation instead of just ignoring it. You don't like immigrants coming to your country and committing crimes? Then fucking render aid to them you fucking retard. They're desperate, do you really think that not helping them would make the situation better?

The state can't force anything if there is no state, and if, for example a voluntary coalition of anarchists form a cooperative, they would be free to exclude whomever they wish. I'm not a true advocate of anarchism, but this example should show you that potential options are perhaps less black and white than you may have originally thought.

That's very altruistic, your virtue is on full display here, if I were a girl I would be very wet right now, you know… down there.

Okay, that's fine, I'm starting to understand your particular worldview.

Something something - European supremacy - Something something - Imperialism - Something something - Third worlders live in shit so I have to personally forfeit my heritage, family, and belongings because that's somehow just.

Fuck, it seems that I'm really doomed, is there anything I can do except kill myself right now?

I'm actually a minority myself I'll have you know. I'm a Slav and my people never really colonized or enslaved non-whites so i shoulder a little less of the burden, right?

I understand that my skin color has granted me certain privileges, like being able to tan, but I'm really not the same as those dirty white capitalists. Spare me, please, and I'll help you make Star Trek a reality.

You're replying to a Holla Forumsyp or a retard tankie. Either way they're not exactly worth getting outraged over.

spooky

nope

become a Communist

That post you are replying to is a quite obvious false flag. If it's not yourself making a scene, please do calm down.

I already render aid to my own people who need shelter. Middle easterners can also go to Saudi Arabia, which is right next door and rich as fuck.

Just having some fun

I already am a communist, a pro-white communist

I know for a fact thee are a lot of variants, so mine should be just as valid. Don't exclude me for my beliefs, that's just fucking immoral.

The guy who lost the popular vote by three million?

Thank you for Correcting the Record™

If you are not against exclusion if it is decided by and enforced by an anarchist collective, but you are only against exclusion because the state enforces it, then how is exclusion itself the problem? Stop arguing that exclusion itself would be the problem, when you are ok with it if an anarchist collective does it.

You're missing my point, brainlet. In a humanitarian crisis you can either make things better or worse depending on how you handle the situation. The middle east got fucked and now there's loads of displaced people. There's not much you can do to fix that at this point besides ending the wars in their countries.

But regardless, you have a bunch of people rushing in to your country because their country is fucked. You can either deal with the problem by rendering aid to them, or you could be a complete retard and let the crisis get really bad, which leads to all kinds of nasty shit happening.

ebin :DDD

Not that I'm defending mass immigration, God fucking forbid, but chances are SA is most likely the, if not one of the dierct causes of the war they're fleeing from.

Like, as a Yemeni refugee to knock on that hellhole's door. See how giddy the idea makes them.

*ask a Yemeni

This still wouldn't fix the primary causes of purely economic or political migrations, namely political instability and lack of economic opportunities to get access to a comfy life. You see no further than the end of your nose.

No you don't mong. How many homeless people are living in your house right now tell me. Charity and paying your taxes on time isn't aid.
They do go there, the emirates and saudi arabia are some of the most immigrant heavy countries in the world.

That's not true though. The majority of immigrants rushing to europe aren't fleeing war, but just want a better job. Otherwise they wouldn't make the long way to Europe to begin with. It's not a humanitarian issue. Their life isn't threatened. Most of them are middle aged males, not women and children who are fleeing war. Those are all in the surrouding countries.

The point was that there is opposition.

Anyway my fellow white men, it's been fun talking to you all, it didn't go as badly as I thought it would and I had some fun.

I'm going to go down some bourbon and continue playing this disgusting incest filled visual novel I'm in the middle of. It's totally degenerate, I don't know how such a based trad society like Japan could even create such garbage.

The collective is exercising the unanimous will of the members in how they voluntarily associate. The state is not exercising the unanimous will of the citizens when they ban X or Y group.

Middle eastern countries are struggling to handle the displaced refugees and have to turn loads away. The ones that get turned away generally apply for asylum in European countries. But even if it were an economic migration (which it isn't), there are ways to fix the root cause of migration that aren't "keep those mudslimes out of muh country xDDDDD". Stop being a retard. The refugee crisis can be fixed if people actually started giving enough of a shit about fixing it.

The state is imposing immigration on communities in that state who don't want it.

Well, they are "rational economic agents" too, you know. If you can earn more and live more comfortably somewhere else, you should move there according to contemporary capitalist theory within its framework.

Just an FYI: this line of reasoning isn't likely to be convincing to most Holla Forumsyps since most don't defend unrestrained free market capitalism. They don't view all people as equal, so it's not as hypocritical as it probably seems to you.

Perhaps these communities should exercise their second amendment and act within the framework the founders provided when confronted with a tyrannical government. Or maybe they abolish capitalism in their communities and form one big coop, resisting these impositions of the state and becoming self sufficient. Just "grumble grumble, we don't want any more brown people here, grumble grumble", and doing absolutely nothing to make any changes isn't going to get any sympathy from me.

I'm not against homogeneous nations, I'm against the idea of purifying already existing multicultural nations like the US because I think it would end up repeating some of the most unpleasant aspects of history (nazis, colonialism, etc.) the only way to make america pure white is to displace or kill every non white in america, which I would consider highly immoral.

A lot, probably most, don't think that nations should be actively pushed towards heterogeneity or homogeneity, but rather, that people should be free to move wherever they want on Earth, with any homo/heterogeneity resulting from free movements rather than state enforced policy.

I personally believe in world government but don't care whether certain regions are ethno-culturally distinct or not. If, however, ethno-cultural conflict proves inevitable in mixed regions I would support the world socialist state being structures as a confederate state, with each state within being based along enthno-cultural lines.

Well yeah. We want a single, homogeneous (= without classes) nation.

deity level posting