Anti-immigration on the hard left

Let's acknowledge something: Being born in Europe rather than the Congo is like being born into the nobility rather than the peasantry in the Middle Ages.

This completely random factor dramatically advantages and disadvantages people. Everyone thinks feudalism was not only wrong, but also very inefficient and held back humanity for so long. Why should some people receive special social status just by birth?

The hard left, for all of it's talk about class struggle, is content only consider certain members inside arbitrary lines working class and sides with imperialist governments to restrict freedom of labor and movement to keep the scraps the ruling class gives them.

Why? How can a movement based on the premise of egalitarianism support borders and the use of imperialist armed forces to defend it? And how can this contradiction be resolved?

What the fuck is this bullshit? Economic reality is not related to some retarded concept of feudal birthrights, but as a follow up of economic history along side of social and economic policies. There would be some validity in that claim IF under-developed economies could not rise into developed ones but this is clearly not the case as proven by countries like Singapore.

I'm with you so far
now you're losing me with your assumptions about the underlying populations
who said the armed forces need to be imperialist, or even centralized?

The biggest issue here is your sociological handicap where you assume everyone on the planet is basically equally as intelligent, capable, motivated, etc. and it's the solely differences in the environment that underly why people in the Congo do worse than people in Poland. There are lots of other differences we're not allowed to talk about on this board that contribute mightily towards the maintenance of those gaps in achievement - and it's not feudalism.

You're right, but good luck dealing with all the former Holla Forumstards whining about "lumpenproles" that are going to flood this thread.

It's good that you finally admit poor people are poor because they are dumb and the bourgeoisie earned their wealth because they are inherently more intelligent, capable and motivated, and communism wouldn't work because poor people are too stupid and lazy to manage themselves.

People in Europe fought for the changes that made these lands so pleasant to live in. If porky had been allowed his way, Congolese and Frenchmen would both be living in squalor alike.
For all the meddling of imperialist powers the only people who can liberate Africa are Africans. It does not fall to Europeans to save them. Africans would only be embittered if we did impose a vision of liberation on them as we would be stealing that achievement from them. It is not realistic to assert that all the Africans could move to Europe; Europe would very quickly collapse under the stress from the excess population. You'll notice that history shows angry Europeans have an incredibly nasty streak.


Petty bourgs get the bullet too

You're right but immigration is still fucking atrocious. People should have good lives where they're born and this pro-immigration shit facilitates brain drain and reproduces poverty in the third world.


Did you really expect an uneducated worker class to simply man the machinery and infrastructure? Many of whom not even a generation prior were still living in tribal societies? Would you expect this degree of rapid acclimation from any other group in the world?
And what is with you people and acting so demure about your viewpoints? Your last line outs you as a racist, you think black people are genetically inferior, at least be forward with it.


Nice trips, I mean you’re right but don’t expect that to convince the moral leftists who think their doing Third Worlders a favor by fighting for their right to cluster in Home Depot parking lots to look for work doing odd jobs under the table.

How about you go back to Holla Forums

Not open borders, no borders.

Thinly veiled idpol is still idpol, user. Nice try though, bitch titts…

If you want to grant Holla Forums instant victory, take the action you're implying.

I see why Third Worldists are unpopular.

Moralistic arguments don't count for shit. Is the modern nation state system with citizenship determined by arbitrary factors a relic which advantages some and disadvantages others? Sure. But for the moment, it is, not only politically and militarily, but also in people's minds and imaginations.

Likely you will never get mainstream support in the industrialized nations for open borders. In the short term, an area's productive potential is quite fixed, so if you bring in a number of new people, providing them with basic services will have to come out of the productive capacities formerly going to the natives. And right now, most people even in the industrialized world don't feel like they have it so good that they have a lot to share. You could say that, aha, but the migrants will also contribute to the productive capacities. Yet this is only true to a point - the European experience so far is in fact that most newcomers are hard to fit into high tech or service industries, and get stuck in unemployment or in menial labour, for several generations even because for some reason Europe is shit at integrating people.

Now in theory if you have a command economy, you can employ all people commensurate with their skills without having to heed "what the economy needs" (again, only to a point). Of course, if you have a command economy, you'll find it's more effective to help build up productive capacities where people live, like what the USSR did for China before the revisionists took over. So this is the reality: you FIRST need socialism in one country, before you can even begin to consider abolishing borders or developing underdeveloped areas.

You have a point, but even with open borders, only a tiny trickle of people living in the exploited nations could get in.

Hell, as a Burger, I'd move to Europe in a heartbeat if I could, but I know many, many people couldn't afford the move and otherwise circumstances keeps them rooted to where they are.

The point should be to fight imperialism and poverty in the exploited nations themselves. I don't disagree with open borders so much as I see it as a liberal distraction.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding; Communists don't want open borders, we want -no- borders, the abolition of those borders set up by imperialists and national bourgeoisie.

It is "Workers of the world, unite", not "Workers of the third world, sit on yout hands until the first worlders decide to revolt and implement real socialism because you subhumans are too poor and dumb for it"


Immigration is a complex issue and it's not a black and white issue, but most arguments against it are "muh race / muh kolsha" from conservatards who support the deprivation of basic human dignity of immigrants by militarized police forces like the ICE, which I hope Holla Forums does not support.

national liberation>>>>>>>>open borders

But, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to type this since immigration cheerleaders can't be convinced of anything. Seriously, just look at the thread not even a single good critique of what the left critics of capitalist immigration have written here.

Open border moral leftists are nothing but tools of their own bourgeoisie. They are below unironic ☭TANKIE☭s who at least side with the ruling classes in the countries hated by their slave-masters.

The era of SuccDems is over. We living in Neoliberal times now. Neoliberals that neglect their domestic population, while showering foreigners with money and turning the native population more reactionary as a result. Everything will start revolving around the issue of the government neglecting its citizens in favour of immigrants, and thanks to liberal democracy, the people will be presented with a choice: a capitalist that loves immigrants ("""progressive"""), and a capitalist that hates immigrants (ooga booga, a fascist). But this is a false dichotomy because they are just an arsonist with a gas can, and an arsonist with matches. They are accomplices, not opponents. To take away the matches is easier (muh united front against """fascism"""), to take away the gas can is safer.