How is the anti-immigration stance so widely popular on Holla Forums different from a rich fuck's unwillingness to let anyone get near the gated community in which he lives? Doesn't it all boil down to a "fuck you, got mine" sort of justification for arbitrarily barring someone from moving wherever they want?

Other urls found in this thread:

I oppose immigration under capitalism.

Immigration under capitalism lowers workers' wages because capitalists can play off one group against another.
Immigration under socialism increases productivity, and because domestic workers control the industries, they keep their wages and their job security.

Fuck. I meant to say there are no wages.

So people can get fucked until "communism".

Wouldn't it make sense then to oppose capitalists "playing off one group against another" rather than immigration?

Anyway, you didn't actually address any of my points. What's your justification for telling someone he doesn't get to enjoy the fairly decent standards of living prevalent in your country on the basis that he was born abroad?

Anti-capitalist opportunism. Identify the modus operandi of the capitalist system, then break the gears that keep it spinning. Anti-imperialism is part of it too.

Anyone who opposes the abolition of borders has neither read Marx nor actually thought about it for more than 5 minutes. The abolition of borders would kill capitalism. Stop taking those nazbol memes to lure Holla Forumstards seriously.

i want to go to space.

It’s pragmatic concern, both political and economic, rather than moral or cultural. By and large of course, you can never speak for everyone.

It's a totally selfish opinion of mine. Try and stop me.

Open borders protestors are as much a porky engineered distraction as idpol, see: Open Society Foundation

Abolition of borders by itself would result in McWarlord© world

mass uncontrolled immigration only serves capitalist pigs who want to profit from cheap labor. They disenfranchise and lower wages for the working class. They also drive up housing prices and healthcare costs.

I support immigration because in the name of accelerationism
the sooner capitalism equalizes exploitation rates between different regions the better not for the first world worker of course

It isn't, it even gets you banned.

Unless you first eliminate capitalism, you'll get exactly the gated communities you referred to. Abolishing national borders for example will leave people's mobility tied no longer to nationality but still very much to their wealth. Which is how you get gated communities, wealthy people using their wealth to control a territory against everyone else. National borders simply superimpose an arbitrary gridwork on top of that, abolishing them will still leave you with everyone largely where they were before based on their wealth, which correlates a lot with nationality currently. The ones profiting will not be the third worlders at the bottom, but porkie and petite porkie national bourgeoisie above them.

one step at a time
this scenario will obviously weaken nationalist sentiment because segregation based on wealth will be more out in the face, no more foreshadowed by segregation based on citizenship

duh, human capital flows to the places with lowest rates of exploitation
there will be no large scale immigration movement if the rate of exploitation for the same kind of work is equalized across the globe

and as to the capitalists, they already have their freedom of capital movement

Do you open your friend door to baboon zoo animals?

Unga bunga black willy

Can't help those if you can't help yourself. The US has a shit ton of poor people, the UN just said that parts of Alabama are 3rd world african tier. It's just more practical to help my next door neighbor than it is to encourage people thousands of miles away to risk their life traveling to my doorstep. Free immigration in the current world would be a fucking disaster as it not only puts stress on their new country but it drains away labor and brains from their previous one. Think if Canada suddenly opened its borders to the US and everyone made a mad dash to jump off the sinking ship that is the US economy. Canada would get a bunch of people it couldn't effectively take care of, and a lot of those who made the US what it is would also spread their cancerous ideologies to Canada. Anyone else who stays in the US (by choice or by lack of means to move) would now be twice as fucked. OP's question is like asking "If you want to help the poor so much then how come you don't let them all in your house?", because I simply don't have the capacity or ability, and until we have a major restricting in the country we never will. More poor immigrants from south of the border will just result in more poor immigrants within our border, only now they have to deal with racism.

ITT mental gymnastics to come up with a "left-wing" argument in support of telling people who had the audacity to be born in the third world to fuck off and die away from first-worlders' view.

Letting someone settle in a certain geographic area and letting someone live in your house are completely different things. This "muh let them in your house" argument in literally normie conservative-tier.

No more baboons!

Baboons in the zoos! Bye bye baboons!

Funny how you're a ☭TANKIE☭, yet also a reformist when it concerns your idpol hobby horse.
This has not been the historical experience. Contemporary, the refugee crisis mostly just inspired a nationalist backlash. Further back, in cases where a national state dissolved over time like Russia, Yugoslavia, Syria, even to an extent in Somalia, local nationalist entities forming have been the norm.
It's fine to want to abolish borders, but you're only shooting yourself in the foot by having naive expectations. It's gonna take a lot of hard work, and likely it'll presuppose socialism on a global scale if you want to make it stick.

Do you let strangers into your house?
Arguments please.


Obviously the free movement of people is a good thing, which would be part of any socialist society. But as other Anons pointed out, abolishing borders and allowing immigration under capitalism only benefits the bourgeoisie by giving them cheaper, unsecure labor, while alienating the native working class who rightfully see themselves as losing out. Being pro-immigration is like the worst hill to choose to die on if your goal is organizing the proletariat, almost as bad as being pro-choice or anti-religion.

Maybe if someone actually advanced a project to take in refugees in a planned, permanent manner like Zizek was suggesting, it could win support. Advocate for the unionization of all refugees, or maybe make it illegal for refugees to work for large capitalist firms and organize them into non-profit cooperatives instead. But nobody wants to put in the work to articulate and fight for that idea, so they end up just blindly defending immigration and getting caricatured by the Right.

How could refugees unionize? They're in a horrible, desperate situation. What's their bargaining position? Porky will happily let uppity refugees live on the street. Plenty more coming in, and seeing what happened to the uppity lot should discourage such noinsense in the future.

Do you believe this is a sensible analogy?

You could say the same about every attempt to unionize. My point is that a pro-immigrant position needs to be constructed in a way that is not antagonistic to the native proletariat.

Mass immigration and financial assistance to refugees is more likely to inflame reactionary tendencies in a population than solidarity and class consciousness.

I support immigration under Capitalism as a means of acceleration.

It's also likely to bring up debates about human rights that are not able to be solved in Capitalism. It's an excellent means of forcing contradictions in Capitalism.

Do you think a nation is your home? It is not.

Neoliberal capitalist states neglect their own people, have more empty houses than homeless people, and push austerity. The last thing people want to see is their own government showering foreigners in money. You're just inflating AfD's support at that point.

What's more to put even more focus on human rights, for people to realize that not just immigrants are being abused?

The more of each, the more resistance the state faces by the public.

If it's refugees from a war, and it brings up the reactionaries in public life, it's simply throwing bait to fish. Forcing them to come out and make others realize how immoral such a place they live in is. Will it illicit anger? Yes. What's at the end of that anger? Usually shame.

That's unbearably naive.

It brings into focus the violent contradictions of NATO nations focus on human rights, when the reactionaries come out of the fold and demand more war. Wars that bleed a country, and usually have no end.

NATO nations, should be sabotaged at every step. If that means more immigration so be it.

it's nice to know y'all are still Holla Forumstard at heart

Well the reasons for doing both are the same: they want shelter, food, and resources. I'd like to see why I should care about people thousands of miles away when someone down the street could use those resources just as much.

Does it? I've advocated for a change to immigration policies and haven't been banned for it, though I don't necessarily advocate for them *just* so I can see a reduction in immigration

Yes. I personally got 4-week ban (with all posts being removed) for not pandering to the ultra-retarded thread.

It happens. Whenever a thread like this attracts Holla Forumsyps the mods become ban-happy. Chop a tree, chips fly.

Mass immigration is a means of acceleration towards fascism.


Marx considered the centralization of nation-states like Germany and Poland to be a historically progressive movement in his time. There were also calls for national liberation since the 1st International. I bet he'd change his position now but we live in a completely historical era

Or a worker's revolution, and if that fails then the people turn to fascism for "law and order"

It's better to have a class and material analysis of immigration than a reactionary and racial analysis that is drenched in spooks. My main problem with ruthless cosmopolitanism is that we just don't live in a world where we can all enjoy an equal quality of life (yet). There is still to many cultural and super-structural conflicts around the world that do in fact effect the forces of production. (Palestine and Israel, India and Pakistan, China and Southeast Asia) Open borders would exacerbate these conflicts, not make them better or bring class consciousness. They'd probably devolve into Nationalistic dick contests like history has shown.

Hispanic immigration in my mind, is good. America should force itself to accept the economic migrants from its south that its compeletly fucked over. Their far more leftist than some minority white population clinging to reactionary views that their world is changing.

Fuck the Trump administration, drive a car full of explosives through whatever wall is set up

Fuck it. I’d welcome a war between a unified Central America with the United States. For far too long America has been a negative force for the lives of millions in this region and cruel when they demanded help.

I don’t care if it strains the resources of America because ultimately America as we know it needs to cease to exist

Whether it's "good" or "bad" really isn't an issue for me since immigration from Central/South America has always been a material fact, especially considering the large Hispanic population in the Southwest USA. My problem with pro-open borders leftists is that they fetishize the refugee/immigrant as the "noble savage" and that we in the more developed world should open up our arms to civilize them into the superior culture. Also the fact they become more Americanized with each generation doesn't make them more leftist then the average American. The only reason why Hispanics vote anywhere near left in the States is because Republicans ramp up the anti-immigrant rhetoric hard and even then a lot of Hispanics supported Trump because they felt that other Hispanic immigrants would create more competition for them. It wasn't a racial thing for them, it was a matter of having more access to resources for production.
I agree that a wall won't stop people from escaping destitution, especially as war and climate change causes migration from the global South, America will be forced to reckon with more migration crises which is necessary to perpetuate capital. I disagree that driving a car with explosive will help anything. If anything it'll give the anti-immigrant camp even more ammunition.
The last time this happened, those countries got obliterated and were installed with McDictators ready to do the bidding for American interests. What would this war solve other than putting more people in destitution and inflaming petty nationalism?
America will continue existing sadly, whether it is more brown or not, the rich will continue their class war on the poor immigrant or not. They're locking down on the borders, making victimless crime easier to persecute, and ramping up militarization.
The USA is becoming one large prison for citizens and one large detention center for refugees.

Racism is embedded in anti-racism, it's a mirror image, not an opposite. Take for example the isolated tribes of the amazon, on which the leftist position is that they should be left alone. Now these tribes are in many aspects extremely brutal, rape is the normal thing to do when coming across a woman of another tribe, they frequently raid each other for loot and slaves and they kill their disabled children. None of our business, is the leftist response to this.

What this practically means is that these tribes are seen as animals, to be left undisturbed in their ways as we do not disturb wildlife.

I do not see them as a "noble savage" if that's your accusation. I simply see them for what they are, human beings who's lives have been turned upside down by American interference during the Cold War and after.


You have no idea what you're talking about, cultures across the Amazon are extremely diverse. Your idea of understanding the sociological roots of Amazonian tribes is reading a fucking throw away pulp novel from the late 19th century, so spare me.

Their left alone because Brazil has proven dangerously irresponsible in actually keeping them safe, and integrating them into Brazilian culture when Brazil is highly racist against them is probably not a good fucking idea.

We learned from the mistakes of assimilation of centuries past, we will not repeat those mistakes.

“What happens when people of a higher culture and barbarians come into contact: the lower culture usually takes on the vices, weaknesses, and excesses of the higher culture, on which basis it feels a certain attraction to that culture and finally, by way of the acquired vices and weaknesses, accepts some overflow of the valuable force of the higher culture- one can also observe this nearby and without traveiling to barbarian peoples, to be sure in a form that is somewhat over-refined and intellectualized and not so easily palpable”

It was more a criticism of the open borders left.
I realize that you see them as people who risk life and limb for a better life. Who doesn't want to move to a better place? Immigration is driven by material conditions whether or not the morality of good and bad, that was point I tried to make.
What solution does that leave us? Just let them be? I don't have a problem with it but I feel that having those tribes helping us fight deforestation and the rape of the natural environment would increase solidarity among the proletariat of the Global South but is racism really bad towards indigenous peoples? Man, and post-colonial activists say that North American natives have it bad (which they do but it's no where near the problems of the south).

Yes, particularly, Brazilians think they're stopping Brazi's economic growth by making swathes of the Amazon "protected". Not that they haven't carved up enough of the rainforest already. The Amazon is big enough to even have an impact on the atmosphere, and they want to just carve that shit up until there's nothing left.

It depends on which region in Brazil, but mostly, yeah. Natives are treated like absolute shit in Brazil.

Much like how the Roman Empire integrated various conquered peoples through indoctrination with an idealist, values-based Roman identity, American empire — which rules most of the world beyond its borders via soft power projection — uses the ideology of the melting pot to recruit and assimilate world labor. Rather than assist international labor movements, the imperial ideology of ‘opportunity’ and ‘freedom’ suppresses labor consciousness both abroad and at home. Bosses play ‘you and him fight’, praising the ‘hard work’ of immigrant slave labor while shaming the displaced native working class for not working enough. Meanwhile, brain drain from the third world to the Greatest Country On Earth continues apace, ensuring that as long as the capitalist carrot is within reach, flight will remain a greater temptation than fight.

Borders will be done away with eventually, but remember that we do not seek to backslide into feudalism, and tribal feudalism preceded the era of nation-States with defined borders. An end to borders now would usher in feudalism and give the owner class what they want, which is frictionless flow of labor. Read Michel Clouscard on why the nation-state, with its defensible and fixed borders, is for the present historical moment a bulwark against the forces of what he calls the capitalism of seduction.

Totally 100% agree with OP.


oppose immigration
love emigration
simple as


t. bourgie

Open question to non-burgerstans because immigration is usually dominated by immigration into it:
Would you let Americans immigrate into your country openly? We often talk about how shitty other parts of the world are but there's some downright awful parts of the US, s there are a lot of people in squalor that never get an opportunity to immigrate for economic reasons because they're from a "rich" country. Chomsky has given some good talks about "American Exceptionalism", that other countries tend to treat the US differently than the rest of the world. If you live in Europe or Canada would you accept a bunch of refugees from Flint, Michigan or Bumbfuck, Louisiana? Why do people from Canada gladly accept middle eastern immigrants but turn their noses up at people in Detroit trying to get cheaper medication due to America's horrible healthcare system?

Would you arbitrarily ban reactionaries from moving near you?

A prole is a prole. I would not deny them except in a crisis.


I would reject Americans en-masse for cultural reasons but would cherrypick a few of the nice ones.
Most stupid nationalists would probably prefer yanks to browns because they're "white" and have "western culture".
I emphasise I'm considering purely cultural manipulation here, but American immigrants essentially square the problems - a Polish immigrant has different culture, but their culture isn't the global hegemonic culture, so their risk to "pure" British culture is lesser and there's possibly the possibility of a desirable, new, synthesis of Brit-Pole culture. Americans by contrast reinforce trends towards Americanisation.

That said
In this case the consideration would seem more economic. Canada's healthcare system isn't designed to turn a profit. That just makes the American immigrants a deadweight loss where the middle eastern ones generally do find work, etc.

The problem with Western Europeans judging Americans by television stereotypes is it simplifies every working class problem this country has and needs to overcome to

It's not original or helpful to our gigantic homeless population who got there by foreclosure or bankrupted by our health insurance system. We need help but all you can do is sound like the most condescending asshole when honestly, you aren't much better considering your nation is still part of fucking NATO and backs ours almost every day of the week.

w2c nice guy certification

Thinking like a capitalist, while calling myself a socialist, and wearing the reddit rose proud.

Fuck America but seriously though most of the ones who bother to leave that shit hole to see some of the world are actually okay. Where as most Poles are actually cunts.

Where does Western Europe get such a petulant ego from, I don't understand it.

tbh television stereotypes make Americanism far more pernicious. People assume that because something like the American dream is a nice idea and not blatantly stupid, it's okay to import it.
oh Britain's a fucking shithole and one of the most embarassing, Laiusesque nations on earth. But it doesn't need to get worse.
Even if Britain wanted to help, what exactly can it do? It has the GDP of like a single poor state. (iirc it might even be the poorest state if it became the 52nd.) The problem with America is not with having insufficient wealth but with distributing it atrociously. Even if Britain simply gave all it's money to American proles directly, you'd solve basically nothing.

don't actually know need to get a job at the home office

technically i'm saying Canadians think like capitalists.
which they do, I blame Americanisation.

yeah but poles have fun names like Wojtek.

our countries are coherent and manageable where America basically invents it's own clusterfuck.
Can't have a real healthcare system because of the dynamics of a federal state with a large urban-rural and racial divide mean that even proles will vote against their own interests.

if nationalists we so minded, the USA would make a great case against the EU tbh.

And yet, the single biggest conglomeration of the wealthy next to America, you really are in no place to talk when you're inches away into becoming America.

hence the disdain for America. We couldn't become America if there was no America.
British politicians are pathetic and get weak in the knees when they see some of the shonkiest democratic institutions for non-government ever contrived.

Our states are gerrymandered to hell, it's built not to make people vote, but to disenfranchise the poor working class from voting, because lord help us they might actually vote their own interests!

Combined with massive propaganda, the only people who end up voting are people able to vote, and able to have their influence heard. That leaves, people who aren't poor, aren't black, aren't Hispanic, and have nice property value.

America's voting system does not reflect the interest of all Americans, it reflects the interests of its state.

You have more Democracy than America does. If Britain does end up becoming more and more like America, I could see your observation about voters voting against their own interests, be more apt there.

"Immigration" doesn't mean "closed borders", necessarily. It's a purely economic provision in our case. It is impossible to have workers' rights in a country that forces them to compete with foreign businesses that have no regard for human dignity, and most of us aren't social democrats, so we don't see a large safety net as an adequate compromise.

The needs of people in the developing world are much better served by ending their exploitation at the source. If we manage to get socialism rolling in first world countries, helping the working class in poorer regions of the world will be a cinch. Hell, fixing the US alone would solve half of it.

it's called the anglosphere in politics for a reason, the UK and US are extremely similar compared to other countries. the US is only worse because it was a direct product of the UK like a drunk's bastard offspring

This is true but even when you account for it, the structural problems arise.
Consider: A tax increase may well not be in the interests of some genuinely proletarian farmer. If indeed it goes so far as to make them lose their job, In Britain, that's not a huge problem because there'll be a city within short distance where you'll probably have relatives and can just move and find new industrial/service work. In America, you'll have to travel a much larger distance and may well be of a family going back farmers for generations, which means taking a much larger jump into the unknown.
The inverse problem also arises - The liberal part of California is probably more culturally different in the subtlties from Alabama than Scotland is from the UK. If you then have lawmakers brought up in the Liberal area, you have an overriding unfamiliarity problem, which further breeds loathing of the federal government and encourages small-state ideology.

A final thought: Because America's all about (classical) Liberalism and so on, there's probably an absence of the sort of sense of noblesse oblige you get from an ex-feudal society. Now, that idea has always been LARP weirdness to mask the guilt of exploitation, but it goes a long way to helping one understand how you get an Alec Douglas Hume on the right. (In perhaps the most vulgar sense, viewing feudalism as a form of collectivism which becomes ingrained moving forwards.)

Ignoring Gerrymandering, theoretically the US system entails more democratic accountability because all the politicians are in contest, powers are separated, etc, so you don't get as many weird backroom deals or government wheeler-dealing as you do in Britain (where an MP owes you no loyalty for 5 years once elected, and a government can survive by contriving deals with ulstermen). The converse of this is of course that deadlock becomes easier. In Britain, it's quite easy to imagine how a government could ram through any policy with a parliamentary majority, where it may be frustrated in the US. If you think government does more bad than good, the US system comes ahead - but if you want to shove through actual reforms without delay a-la Atlee the British system triumphs.

Britain's LARP idea of itself is the Greece to America's Rome. The anglosphere has been an awful contrivance to deny our more natural position as an orbiter of some future European empire, or (as Enoch Powell once interestingly noted) Russian empire, where our history more naturally takes us.
Incidentally I always feel America's influence has done more to oliberate Australia than Britain. Maybe since they're right across the sea from one another, and have broadly similar status in terms of being very spread out, federalized, etc. (to back up my theory on the size and spread of a population influencing politics further, Britain-sized New Zealand by contrast runs quite neatly.)

Maybe since they're right across the sea from one another, and have broadly similar status in terms of being very spread out, federalized, etc.
Don't forget the massive coal deposits which gives them an easy way to ignore green fuels and wreck their environment in the name of economic growth.

I support immigration between legally/economically harmonious nations. Anything else enforces perverse incentives for exploitative human rights arbitrage.

Question for neolib shills and their deluded dupes (unironic accelerationists excepted):

Even ignoring the fact that mass economic immigration is blatantly Atlantic slave trade 2.0, the closest thing to a concrete benefit I can think of for anyone other than porky is the tiny amount of reparations immigrants send back to the family in the old country they had to abandon out of their microscopic earnings, which is really just an inefficient way to send foreign aid after stealing better paid native jobs and giving them to gutless underpaid foreign scabs. Really though

Hardmode: No whitewashed antebellum slavery apologia.

Because the rich porky WANTS mass immigration into their country, just not their neighborhood.

Immigrants are literally lumpen
they are union breakers
they are wage undercutters
they are tools of the bourgeoisie
They destroy the revolutionary potential of the working class.

i smell a rat

Americans coming to the US do not count as refugees under all the relevant international conventions and national laws. Currently, no EU (or indeed any "western" country that I know of) accepts as refugees people who migrate for reasons other than war and persecution. So unless those USians would show that they are a persecuted minority, political refugees, been exposed to torture by the authorities, and can't settle elsewhere in the US, they would not be accepted as refugees.

There is otoh a program to allow for migration of highly skilled workers and researchers, but that's another matter.

You are becoming America because you are exposed to the same kind of economic pressures after you allowed Maggie to demolish the welfare state. Plus, Perfidious Albion unleashed industrial capital on the world centuries ago, it is only fair that you must suffer its ravages.

I assume you're excepting migration for reasons like climate change, because in that case, the argument is a fairly straightforward: they can't exist there anymore. Purely economic migration is a harder sell. For the immigrants themselves, it's easier to make a living in the West than it would be back home, which is why they come here. Unlike slaves, they do come here mostly voluntarily, though they often get caught in debt peonage to pay for the trip. For people who attach great importance to personal liberty, the freedom of movement in this case, that's usually enough of a justification - an anarkiddies hand is easily filled.

On the macro scale, it's probably harmful to the poor people back home though. Brain drain is very real. If you just want to raise standards of living across the board, the best thing to do would be a program of sustainably developing the MOP across the globe.

Yes, for the same reason I'm excepting genuine* war refugees. *"genuine" would not include most refugees today, because most refugees would prefer to stay home or nearby if we had given them sufficient humanitarian aid, aid which has been directly diverted to pay for highly inefficient welfare toward refugees in expensive 1st-world nations. Similarly, I would not except climate migrants until the cost of sustaining them on foreign aid exceeded the cost of evacuating them.
In the short term, of course. Note that the same was true of US slaves, who also had a higher quality of life than Africans, though in another parallel to neoliberalism, this was due in part to imperialism against Africa. In the long term, such a policy will eventually plunge their descendents' new home into the same state of abject porky domination as their ancestral homeland.
Many slaves were captured by foreign slaver raids, but the majority of slaves sold to Americans actually signed away their freedom "willingly", were already slaves in Africa by birth, or "accepted" slavery as an alternative to summary execution after losing intra-African wars. The parallels with modern neoliberalism are infuriating.
Yeah, that and the labor-activism-driven victories against weak laws and corrupt enforcement that would come with such economic prosperity.

I disagree with this, you can't just only look at the "cost" without also factoring in what kind of future they have there; we have seen for example in Palestine and the various permanent Palestinian refugee camps what kind of human misery, dependence, hopelessness, etc. a life as a permanent refugee camp dweller entails. It's the same argument you made to say that economic migrants settling here are in the long run not actually better off. The right in b4 spooked thing to do would be to make realistic assessments of the carrying capacity of various nations affected by climate change, and set up a global program for permanent and full citizenship relocation of communities elsewhere when their native lands become unable to further sustain them.

An aside, your attempt to sell the African slavery as having a voluntary element rings hollow. It's true most were captured in intra-African conflicts by other Africans and then sold by them, but to say that them "choosing" slavery over execution counts for anything is asinine. Same for already being born as slaves, there is no voluntarism there. The choice for a slave is always between death at the hand of the master and slavery - it's no choice at all.

IMHO the fight on global warming isn't over by a long shot, and there are numerous approaches (both passive changes to reduce our impact on the climate, and active changes to geoengineer away damage that has already occurred) open to us in that fight, with the true point of no return very far into the future, if ever. AGW denialism is intolerable, but excessive AGW defeatism too must be stamped out.
That's something of a special case, though I must stress neither of the following facts in any way denies Israel's reprehensible acts against the current Palestinian territories: On the one hand, these camps are not entirely Israel's fault, as their neighbors (including Jordan, which is literally "the Pakistan to Israel's India" vis-à-vis the British Mandate) are even more viciously repressive to Palestinians than Israel, and maintain those border camps primarily to abuse Israel as a lightning rod for their own domestic dissent; On the other hand, far more MENA Jews fled to Israel than Israelis drove out Palestinian Muslims, and the large numbers of Muslim citizens of Israel itself, who are far better off than citizens of any other MENA nation, stand in stark contrast to the near-100% ethnic cleansing of Jews from other MENA nations. My preferred solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis would be a modified two-state solution in which the impractically tiny and discontiguous Palestinian territories are fully annexed by Israel's neighbors, integrating their populations as full citizens, and possibly demilitarized under UN security.
My point is that it's dangerously similar to the paeans offered by neolibs: "They want to move from the countryside, us buying up their farms, or even destroying their villages and slums to force them out, has nothing to do with it", "migrants and guest workers love being kept on a leash with employer visas, internal passports in their home countries are even worse", "violence in the developing world is something we can never alleviate, only by rewarding our own MIC with scabs from among its desperate victims can we help", etc., etc..

Shitlibs have been all too happy to ascribe slavery entirely to now-alien concepts such as race, religion, and settler colonialism. This allows accepted concepts such as wage labor, debt, class, and free trade to be let off the hook, in spite of the fact that the division between our modern capitalist world and that of slave empires is a blurry one, delineated by small changes and shifting definitions rather than abrupt leaps forward.

An important task of socialists must be to reveal capitalism for the depravity it is, and guard against creeping backslide into horrors supposedly "too antiquated" to worry about today.

Human induced climate change can certainly be mitigated, and likely in the short term it would be enough if the large economies were under a control regime similar to that of China, and implemented a similarly radical dash towards solar and nuclear energy, and a top down forcing of mass transit and energy efficiency in the economy. That is not where we are today however, and I don't see us going there in the next decade. The EU, India and the bloc of other rapidly developing economies like Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria and Brazil, and the US are not going to take the actions needed, or not take action to a sufficient degree to avert significant changes. We will have to deal with something along the order of hundreds of millions of people being displaced, in parts of the world that don't have the capacity and frankly the mindset needed to absorb them. Look at how Bangladesh treats the Rohingya, that is what we can expect when the Bangladeshi in turn try to flee to India. They already have militarized fence around the country! Your note about how Jordan treats the Palestinians is very much to the point here, and we should make the moral case from assuming a large part of that burden, given that our industrial development has contributed an outsize part to the changing of the atmosphere.

As to the note about the economic in stead of ethnic etc. origins of slavery, I agree 100%. It was the advent of merchant capitalism on the African coast and local "entrepreneurs" trading human capital to the labour intensive feeder economies for the European manufactories. All so those same African entrepreneurs could purchase the goods coming from those manufactories. It is maddening that this gets obscured by imbeciles like Ta-Naheshi Coates into a narrative about "eldritch energies of white supremacy"

In a worst case scenario of "no sustainable power, no conservation, no geoengineering, no foreign aid", I doubt the humanitarian plight of refugees would be a big priority either.

On the bright side, most areas with the greatest predicted increase in agricultural capacity are almost completely unpopulated, so I think the amount of violence in such a scenario would probably be much lower than commonly imagined.

It's about ends not morals. My problem with immigration is that cheap migrant workers undermine the power of labor unions. Obviously borders a spooky and unfortunate.

"muh lumpen" is a dead giveaway that someone used to be a Holla Forumsyp.

No, they aren't. You have no idea what this word even means, you simply use it as a substitute for "shitskins".

No, they aren't. In fact, the last wave of strikes in '80s France were led by immigrant workers. Immigrants didn't bust unions, the mutation of labor in the neo-liberal era did.

I didn't realize immigrants had the authority to set wages. Or… maybe it is that capitalists actually do and you somehow end up blaming fellow proles instead of the bourgeoisie?

So is pretty much every prole in existence, immigrant or not — especially those that are more productive than usual, those that are unemployed, etc.

For that to happen, the working class in the developed world would need to have revolutionary potential in the first place. :^)


Immigrant labor needs to be unionized tbh, this way we can fight to increase everyone's wages while visibly committing to internationalism

How many of the people spouting that nonsense are pushing labor unions at the source of the problem in the 3rd-world itself?

I don't blame unionists in third world countries for causing migration you dumbass, if anything, lack of union power in the third world makes everyone poorer and more miserable except for porky

That's my point. A lot more energy goes into fussing with immigrants in the 1st-world where our resources don't go as far and simply ejecting them would be easier, rather than pouring activist intervention into the 3rd-world where every penny would make a far greater impact, but we're likelier to confront life-or-death opposition that hasn't been seen here since the days of Pinkerton massacres.

Mass immigration is a symptom of global capitalism. Also, climate change will force the displacement of billions of people within the next hundred years. Not millions. Billions. There is nothing we can do to stop it. We ain't seen nothing yet.

Anti-immigration, pro-immigrant. That's about it.

This is the right ethic

A destruction of boarders right now would result in nothing, but neoliberalism. Also increased immigration increases the poverty in the third world of those who stay.

Seriously most of my friends are second and third generation Hispanics. There pretty right wing, and constantly talk about buying Amazon stock and shit, despite have little money to invest. They completely bought into the American Dream.

All your doing is killing yourself. Any hole in the wall would be patched very quickly.

Central America would lose. Annon only fight when you can win.

Labor is the most important resorce. White Americas have little kids. If there kids were left to there own devices they wouldn’t have enough labor power to keep up a functioning empire. This is why so much of the American bourgeois supports immigration. Because they need immigrant labor because white Americas don’t have enough kids.

Sargon of Akkad says the same things about Syrians.


Shouldn’t the Palistian refuges go to Israel instead of Europe because Israel is a lot closer to Palistine than Europe and Israel has a similar standard of living to Europe. Also Israel get’s a lot of free cash from America, which could be used to help the Palistians.

It’s like justice for the civil war.

I was using the Palestinians as an example of what happens when people are kept for a long time in conditions of pure "humanitarian assistance" in stead of integrating them into societies. Of course, Palestinians who were expelled and their descendants that have not been integrated into other societies should be allowed to return to Israel and have full citizenship there, and Israel should end its occupation of the rest of Palestine.

Access to white people is not a human right! You have to go back!

lmao immigrants saved the unions


Why do people spend time making graphs and then don't even bother to label their axis?


But they did. It could be made a bit clearer, but I think it's ripped from a video where everything is explained by voice in addition to the labels. Here is how I interpret it: Horizontal axis is support, meaning percentage of people in a particular group (the group is different for the different lines) supporting a given proposal; the vertical axis is the likelihood of the proposal being passed in the national parliament (USA in this case I think). The black diagonal represents a theoretical supposed ideal where the probability of the decision being made in parliament is directly proportional to the number of people in the general population supporting it (some people would prefer a drastic shift around the 50 % point of support, but whatever). The violet line shows the correlation between support of the bottom 90 % (so in this case, the right end of the horizontal line means support by the entirety of that group) and how this translates to the probability of it getting adopted in parliament: Support by the plebs doesn't matter. The yellow line shows the correlation between support by the elite (I suppose that means the top 10 %, but it could be smaller, be as it may the right end of the horizontal axis now means support by all the people in that group) and probability of a matching decision in national parliament, and there is a positive correlation.

So, end of story: Talking to your peers and convincing them of this or political position matters if you are rich, otherwise not. Voting is entirely pointless for normal people, according to results from US stats.

If you want to bomb a country to free it's people, don't bitch when thouse people immigrate to your country.

I don't know what the fuck the OP is talking about but I just wanted to let you know I want to fuck Nui so much.

This never happened you moron.
Insipid mongoloids like you promote reactionary thought when you tell Iraqis and Afghans that the rape of their country lies with Joe Blow slaving away at a McJob. Read a book, or actually- better yet, kill yourself you absolute shitbag scum.

Tbe problem in my eyes with this "anti-immigration" stance is that it can very easily turn into a "anti-immigrant" stance. Immigrants are comrades, and possibly even more ready for organization due to their displaced state.

That being said I definitely we should oppose the conditions that force people from third world nations to immigrate.


I'm talking about how the right says "Bomb Syria, hes oppressing his poor freedom loving people!". Then the right says "These subhuman refugees from Syria need to die!"
First off, you have emotional problems. Second, calling people names then trying to make them listen to your point of view creates rightists (and makes you just come off as an asshole). Yet after all that you are saying memes like "Read a book!". You are acting like a spoiled child. No one will read a book recommended by a brainlet like you. Sorry!

Because mudslimes are gay lmao. I don't want to mutually aid these hutfucks.
volk for mod

just kill yourself you illiterate retard, no one cares for your shit ideas

Hope you are ashamed and embarrassed. You give us leftists a bad name.

Not him, but it's liberal cunts like you that give leftist a bad name. Following your reasoning the whole first world deserve to die

I’s a screen cap from a video which explains the axis.

No prol supports the was though.


We will see about that. General attitudes in the military when I was still in the service was that most of us were more than willing during the migrant crisis to gun down these invaders. If it comes down to it, I can bet that most of the left in Finland are more than willing to defend the fatherland form these scum.

You're not a leftist, anyone willing to attack innocent migrants is not a leftist. True Finnish leftist nationalists would want to kill traitors like you for being a disgrace to Finland and then help settle in as many migrants as possible.

Friendly reminder that being critical of ☭TANKIE☭-style anti-imperialism gets you banned from Holla Forums but that sort of garbage is entirely tolerated.

Most people on Holla Forums are from right wing groups originally. They love to hate "identity politics" because it's just a way to hate feminism like they did when they watched Milo Yiannoppolis during GG.

Daily reminder that people who make comments like this are "former" liberals