Is being for open borders a required tenet of being a real leftist? Aren't borders a "spook"?

Is being for open borders a required tenet of being a real leftist? Aren't borders a "spook"?

Other urls found in this thread:

Yes, borders are a spook, that's why you should oppose them

dumb post

yes to both

Ah yes, isn't anybody forgetting about the Islamist insurgents in the Congo?

why do migrants cross borders? there's your answer

This is what these "ironic" arguments sound like.

Borders are a spook, the disparities in economic conditions delineated by them are not.

real scotsman

if something is socially constructed, but has obvious utility, is it still a spook?



Yes borders are a spook.

Man why is Holla Forums in here spergraging? Did someone swirly them in school?

Borders are spooks but they're useful for security reasons.
Spooks =/= evil.

All universalists believe in abolishing borders.

Funny, two other similar politicians from Sweden were shot on video a couple years back. Video is on Liveleak.

We don't want to abolish borders now, only after we reach communism.

Abolishing borders =/= "open borders."


Stirnerfags are retards and are in the same tier as Kekistan MAGApede trash.

No, being for no borders is.

Open borders:No Borders::Globalism:Internationalism

Borders are only a spook for american people who don't grasp how a real nation operates and americanized euros who are liberal urbanites LARPing as leftists.

The problem of that people would be solved with work. They have too much free time.

I believe in an eventual borderless society but we obviously aren't there yet. That being said if you could somehow magic away all the borders the ensuing chaos would almost certainly accelerate us towards some kind of a revolution, but more likely a reactionary one

What's the difference?

"Open borders" still retains borders, it just means that now you can import poormies over them.

Are you saying that you can't import poormies with "Abolishing borders"?

No, you crypto/pol/ dipshit.

So can you explain how capitalists cannot import poormies without borders?

Capitalists are HELPED by loose migration laws since the best and brightest of the Third World run off to the imperialist/exploiter countries rather than wage socialist revolution at home. Once in the First World, these migrants end up becoming consumerist whores and fail privy to all the fallings of western/imperialist culture.

For instance, the king of Morocco sends his country's "problem children" to Europe out of fear he may be overthrown in an Arab Spring-tier uprising. Pretty sure the regime in Algeria does this as well. Not surprising, nearly all the "Islamic terrorist" attacks which have happened in western Europe for the past four years have been committed by Maghrebis (both Paris attacks, Brussels, Nice, and so on).

ISIS is an american invention to attack Europe

if borders aren't "real" then why oppose them? how do you oppose something non-existent?
if they're not there, then the problem is already solved.

"spooks" is code for anarchists cannot into materialism

No. Open borders under capitalism are detrimental to workers.

It's difficult to decide where to start when dealing with the kind of idiot that spouts Holla Forumstier shit like "poormies."

The abolition of borders implies the abolition of private property. Nation-states are organized to regulate people and property and impose various laws and regulations on both. The entire bourgeois order as we currently experience is predicated upon this sort of organization.

So without an artificially imposed geographic boundary, how exactly are capitalists supposed to impose or support the laws and policies which enable them to extract wealth in the first place? "Borders" are just private property writ large, and without them land-based property ownership becomes incoherent and breaks down. Without the ability to portion off discrete geographical segments of a country, the wealth extraction that makes these regions poor in the first place becomes impossible.

Borders are the legal fiction that create the conditions that enable that wealth extraction, you stupid fucker. Without the ability to imprison people within arbitrary geographical limits, then systematically deprive them of the means to sustain themselves, you lose the leverage necessary to impose the conditions that drive them into porky's factories and plantations.

Without borders and without the private property that they enable, there is no one to "import" and no where to import them to, you cocksucking illiterate.

The absolute fucking state of this board.

it's rather capitalism then, not the borders
it really doesn't matter if neoliberals or "nationalists" in the government secure the exploitation
open borders and closed borders are both in their interests and against it, it doesn't matter what they do it's always for shortsighted profit motive and dealing with it poorly not to invest any of it into the issues they themself cause

yeah, sounds much better
and again a high quality reply
why arguments when you can pretend shock

I was quoting

So what comes first? The abolition of private property or the abolition of borders?

Borders are a manifestation of differences in culture, language, regional ecosystems. Arguing for open borders is advocacy for cheap capitalist labor.

No if you arent illiterate and mentally retarded this is what it sounds like using licences as an analogy and you know it

I didn't realize I'd have to do all your fucking thinking for you, especially when it comes to marxism 101

>Thus, from March 18 onwards the class character of the Paris movement, which had previously been pushed into the background by the fight against the foreign invaders, emerged sharply and clearly. As almost without exception, workers, or recognized representatives of the workers, sat in the Commune, its decision bore a decidedly proletarian character. Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society. In a beleaguered city, however, it was possible at most to make a start in the realization of all these measures. And from the beginning of May onwards all their energies were taken up by the fight against the ever-growing armies assembled by the Versailles government.

You can't have one without the other, that's the whole fucking point.

More fucking retards swarm to the thread.

Open borders are detrimental to workers under capitalism because it encourages economic displacement of millions of people due to international capitalist trade and capital movement.

Open borders is not just immigration, also trade.

Borders can’t be abolished but rather have to wither away.

And how do you abolish borders and private property all around the world exactly?

The elite are about their short term personal gain, and don't care how they have that money or at whose expense.
If the same effort was put into helping those people achieve their potential in their own countries, those countries would automatically improve and would not need foreign companies to strip their resources, or foreign banks to take care of their finance.
Think of how many scientists and doctors from india are overseas, and now think of how the 90% live in india, without access to even basic facilities.

For this image, why is the third world the third world and the first world the first world. It isn't an easy thing to answer, but is 'easily' stated on the image.
The left, socialist column, seems to represent a meritocracy in general, and so would be closer to the natural order of things on the surface.

No, lQ below 80 is enough to go through as a real leftist.

Borders are no spook.
Lets say americans take care of American clay and infrastructure and economy it is theres by thear labor.
Mexicans take care of there clay and infrastructure and economy it is thears by thear labor.
You take care of yourself you are yours by your labor.
You dont take care of yourself and let others take care for you of who do you belong then by them having infuence over you making you there property.
Borders are like house fences hold what people have made for themselfs.
I would want to have strangers going in my property yust because it is better here by my labor.

this should wordfilter to "I never read anything by Stirner"

ISIS recruits from immigrant youth though. It's also the case that the second-generations (people whose parents migrated to France or Belgium from Morocco/Algeria) are more radical than FOBs.

National liberation > multiculturalism

"Multiculturalism" is an idea created by the settler-colonial state for the purpose of offsetting revolution. You MUST have a national consciousness before a proletarian one as there's no way socialism can ever be implemented in settler-colonialism.

Yes, brain-drain is a huge issue in the Third World, particularly in places like the Middle East where all the Palestinian youth who could be fighting Zionism are instead running off to Boston and Toronto in order to become doctors and engineers, and who end up staying there since Zionist occupation makes it impossible to get a job back home.

Nationalism has always been a part of socialism.

Yes, it is.

Oh shit I guess you got me there.


Congo has like ten thousand rebel/bandit group for every region so it wouldn't surprise me if she came across one of the islamist ones.

And only Trotskyist fuckwits who care more about the aesthetics of permanent revolution than application of theory are obsessed with open borders as an end in and of itself.
Unfortunately there's a lot of aesthetic lifestylers around thanks to the growth of idpol.

The same way they do everywhere borders are porous and weakly enforced?
African ones have historically been worthless so instead they opted to bribe local leaders, national leaders or failing that bribing military leaders of neighbouring nations to threaten or outright take the desired areas.

>open borders

Brainlet argumentation 101: take a sentence out of context, counter example, win argument. Good job, you did it. You're the smartest and the best. Here you go, you win the prize. Keep up the good work.

End yourself.

Being communist and/or being anarchist means being against all borders

On the other hand, being 'leftist' doesn't necesarry means that, because most of them are not communist/anarchist but are left-wing of capital. Logical conclusion of politics of 'left wing of national capital' is basically Asser.

What's the point of a theory if there's not praxis?