What does Holla Forums think of the open borders mentality?

what does Holla Forums think of the open borders mentality?
are country borders meaningless, oppressive, something else?
do all people have the right to move to any country they want?

Borders are bullshit because they bind the municipalities in rigid nation-states and hinders the freedom of association and government.

Noone is obliged to welcome immigrants though but in most cases organized and controlled immigration and integration is in the rational self-interest of the locals.

we will need borders to show the imperialists a halting line

a strong border to show the workers independence and souvereignity of their state

in socialism people wont have the need to flee their home and go where their hope for a better life lies
we will establish peaceful and fair relationships with all workers around the world and support each other
freedom to travel within our nations of equals comes naturally
and of course we will help our comrades in need that are under attack by imperialism and give shelter for their civilians - while also offering military support to make their homeland safe again

btw, you see how shitty your map was thrown together, plastering "no war" all over europe, even ukraine and turkey, ignoring existing problems on the route and how the western allies in the region simply reject taking in any refugees at all.

you canz go from a coapitalist "republic" to a commie utopia. its suicide.
look at makhno

youd need to build soialism first, which means youd get isolated and sanctioned in europe.
youd need strong borders (military and national unity) to hold out.

and immigrants would function as a neutraliser to any plan.
kinda what Soros is doing.
Besides emptying middleeastern states of arab citizens to prevent them from rebuilding.

Other than Ukraine, it makes sense though. For example the ones that reach Poland refuse to stay there despite it being a perfectly fine place to live in to the point where the government had to keep them in by force. And even then the authorities couldn't simply shoot them whenever they wanted so they ran away anyway.

actually, these governments put them in buses and drive them to germany
poland refuses any non christians

I hate borders, but we can't get rid of them as long as we have capitalism. That's the sad truth of it all.

I think you mean the Balkans. As far as I know, Poland did not pay for buses and people have often complained about the fact that they have to enforce a law that forces them to keep people that don't want to stay in Poland and that many people in Poland don't want either.

top cuck
It's the exact opposite tard

No war in eastern Turkey, No war in Ukraine, nice bullshit map

they are also counterrevolutionary and contrary to the international solidarity necessary for the proletariat to thrive

But isn't the bourgeoise pushing for the multiculturalism thing? Capital greatly benefits from borderless, unregolated states.

They devide people, but at this moment, if you were to abolish them, everything would go to shit.
Ideally yes, pragmatically not an option at this moment.

No. Anti-immigration is a cornerstone of right-wing rhetoric everywhere (even where we don't really have problems with immigrants, or we send more people abroad than we receive) and although the use of cheap illegal labour favors capitalism, most industries have no problem whatsoever moving abroad if that supply is cut short at home.

IMO, we need to do away with borders as part of an enterprise to do away with the nation itself. It is an incredibly useless framework for fighting modern capitalism.

Spoken like a true anarchokiddie.

Just because the right supports something, doesn't automatically make it bad. For example, the right generally opposes putting poison in our water supply.

Are they not at least required in the stepwise approach to Full Communismâ„¢ If all borders disappeared tomorrow they would either naturally reform along similar lines pronto or you'd have the ideological war to end all wars. But of course we know that simply saying X is shit while offering no tangible alternative is the MO of most of you on here, so crack on.

what exactly do you think "multiculturalism" is?

Tell that to Michigan.

It might surprise you to learn that imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper somewhere aren't magical forces that keep people separated.

No, but a common culture, language and identity is.

Really, language is one of the main dividers in all of human history.

Boy is my face red right now!

Try judging things by their own merit instead, and if you can come up with a good reason for supporting the nation you tell me. Leftists have been looking for one for almost two centuries now.

First of all how do you suppose to abolish borders.

Second of all how do you expect the spooked mass to not go fight over their lines.

This is what meme philosophers do to your brain.

Borders are what happens over time when people of shared culture identity and history group together to defend their interests. Not prefect but more workable than whatever utopic alternative you subscribe to. The world is not ready to be border free with so many diametrically opposed ideologies. And before you spookpost harder these ideologies are real enough that half the world would fight for them. That you don't goes some way to showing why you're so politically impotent.

The belief that borders shouldn't exist and and people should roam freely

Even a workers state will need them unless there has been a successful global revolution. The workers state needs borders to exile porkies and their supporters, they also need borders to prevent free loaders i.e people living in the workers state with subsidized rent and commuting to a porkie state for work.

Multiculturalism isn't borderless at all. Multiculturalism is just pushing for the liberal tolerance meme like "all cultures living alongside together happily" whilst porky fucks everyone in the ass.

Imaginary lines guarded by men with real guns.

Way to miss the point.

You misunderstand what "statelessness" means, my good anarchist.

If you abolish the state right now, you will simply get steamrolled by other imperialist nations. If you abolish borders right now, immigrants, no longer being held back by borders and police, will stream en masse into your area without your consent.

Now, you may like that, but the general population likes some form of order, peace and stability and as such oppose being conquered by imperialists or be flooded by masses of uneducated, differently-cultured foreigners.

What leftists mean with "statelessness" is when we have achieved global socialism. Only then, when we have eliminated poverty, backwardness (IE raping babies like in some parts of africa, killing witches etc) and eliminated tribalism and imperialism, we can abolish borders and nations.


Not the point. They (the fugees) all openly state they WANT to go to Sweden the UK and Germany.

Common culture, language and identity are constructed by the state, not the opposite. If you were living in South Italy before the unification you'd have almost as much of a hard time understanding the dialect, culture and values of someone from the North as you'd have understanding those of a russian.

If you leave out conquest, colonization, displacements, and so on.

Borders are what happen when one government has an economic reason to expand itself, and shared cultural identity is what it creates to impose itself over the conquered peoples. The processes of national unification in Europe showed provinces that spent almost a millennium competing and fighting against each other, with mutually incoherent tongues and a completly different historical makeup coming together into a homogenized whole that was constructed through universal education, national myths, cultural policies, etc.

We're talking about mutable entities, and if we respected them as something holy and inviolable there would have been no social progress since the days of the tribes.

Oh yes one fucking example of south tirol is proof that languages and cultural divides dont exist today.

That is because it was before the masses could move and communicate great distances. The spread of railways and telegraphs brought the unification of languages.

Watch Zizek

Everything you've said is so besides the point I was making that I won't even bother replying.

You misunderstood me and I'm not an anarchist, so stop writing all the arguments you've rehearsed against anarchists because you're having a conversation with someone in your head.

So what the fuck do you propose? As has been pointed out numerous times ITT they unite people. What do you think would happen if they were just gone one day? Borders are essential today, more than most times in history. Honestly what do you think would happen if borders disappeared with the world as it is today?

Haha, what the fuck do you think a border is? Some sort of force field or something? People intermingle across your imaginary lines all the time and have always done so and anywhere you go in the world you will find cultural and linguistic intermingling between people.

You might have even heard of some of these far off, exotic places! Did you know there are people in Texas that speak Spanish and in Mexico that speak English? Also, despite speaking the same language and having a common culture and identity, there are Francophones in Belgium that don't live in France. Shocking!

You stop enforcing them. It turns out imaginary things disappear when you stop pretending they're real. Ta-da!

What the fuck sort of planet are you living on, anyway? The vast, vast majority of people on the planet don't give a single thought to borders. They're a fiction foisted on them by their ruling classes, because the only point of a border is to delineate between zones of control. The elimination of borders would presuppose the elimination of the bourgeois and feudal ruling classes that created them in the first place. The average person has no need for them.

Spook me once, shame on you

Borders are legal fictions that originally demarcated the extent of some chief or king's power. The Romans didn't give a shit about "borders" when they invaded Gaul. Neither did the Teutons or the Cimbri when they did the same. China's "borders" shifted wildly across the millennia regardless of the cultural makeup or the linguistic similarity or disparity of the people within them based once again on the extent of the power of whatever feudal lord happened to be in charge at the time.

The plebs didn't care about the borders because they were too busy trying to survive to care. When Rome fell and feudalism developed, peasants still didn't care about borders because whether it was this king or that they pledged fealty to, all they really had time for was working whatever god-forsaken plot of land they were tied to. It was the same for Chinese peasants as well. The only time borders fit into their lives at all was when they were pressed into service to defend them–at the behest of their lord who was the only one that had a real, vested interest in maintaining those borders, ie, keeping some other lord or king or whatever out so that he could stay on top.

And it's exactly the same now. Borders aren't constructed or maintained for the benefit of the average person. They're legal fictions that benefit only a country's leaders.

Pick any given country in Europe and chances are you'll find that the population of that country is far from homogeneous. Spain? Britain? France? Norway? Maybe you've heard of these places?


You misunderstand what "statelessness" means, my good anarchist.

If you abolish the state right now, you will simply get steamrolled by other imperialist nations. If you abolish borders right now, immigrants, no longer being held back by borders and police, will stream en masse into your area without your consent.

Now, you may like that, but the general population likes some form of order, peace and stability and as such oppose being conquered by imperialists or be flooded by masses of uneducated, differently-cultured foreigners.

What leftists mean with "statelessness" is when we have achieved global socialism. Only then, when we have eliminated poverty, backwardness (IE raping babies like in some parts of africa, killing witches etc) and eliminated tribalism and imperialism, we can abolish borders and nations.

Video somewhat related


lmao you're a moron

No, not for the most part. Unification of language and culture spent decades, if not centuries being on the agenda of governments everywhere, and was achieved through educational and cultural intervention, not by any natural process of interaction between the people.

But that's getting a bit away from the point I was trying to make. Whatever the means of cultural unification are, the process of cultural unification itself implies that cultural differences can wither away by subjecting a group of people to the same practices. Everywhere, the material and political means of life come first and the cultural ones later. We can't subject the former to the latter or we'll remain stagnant.

What about revolutionary France and Russia, do you think the average citizen of France and Russia didn't care that every imperial power was invading their borders after their revolution?


Perhaps in the past. Today I'd love my country to properly secure OUR borders. I ask you too though. What does a borderless world look like? Will it work if borders disappeared right now?

The governments of the early 19th century didn't care yet the industrial bourgeoisie needed migrant workers to understand workers, i.e British industrial capitalists need to coordinate workers across the UK and the Empire thus old English was rapidly modernized by British capitalists as the needed workers in London to understand Workers in Dublin.

That relies first on another fiction of the "average French (or Russian) citizen" that conveniently ignores the cultural and linguistic disparities that existed and continue to exist between the peoples within these borders. An individual from Marseilles and one from Paris were already different enough, but that isn't even considering the Bretons that didn't consider themselves "French" at all.

What do you think they were being invaded for anyway? If the border of France for example represents the legal fiction of the King's domain, then killing or otherwise deposing their king is a direct refutation of that fiction and the entire authority for which such a fiction was based upon, which is what necessitated the wars of reaction by Europe's monarchs in the first place, because kings and governments have as little regard for borders as the peasants do and recognize them only as the current geographical extent of their direct hegemony. When Napoleon started taking his show on the European road, do you think he really gave a shit about "borders?"

I get your point but not really at all
t. italian

Both revolutionary France and Russia was able to create a national identity of the revolutionary state thus why both were able to mobilize the masses to defend the revolution that spanned the old empire.

You guy need to understand that when we speak about doing away we borders, we're not doing so out of love for "multiculturalism" or whatever, we're doing so out of a conviction that the framework of the nation no longer corresponds to modern economic reality and that we need to rethink it if we're ever going to fight for something better.

The mobility of labour, the imposition of cultural diversity and so on are going to be tough at first, but ultimately desirable if that means that we'll soon work our way towards an United States of Asia and Europe, as precursos to a system of government that has the power to regulate economic activity in the entire world. We can't remain culturally and demographically insular while trying to achieve this, as the EU proves. The "nation" can't remain tied to a preexisting cultural entity, because if it does so it will remain powerless against global capitalism and international finance.

Okay. So porky both benefits from the liberal tolerance of minorities and from keeping the borders real and as close as possible? Sounds a bit contradictory.

I would like you to speak for yourself. Most marxists here don't want open borders or the immediate abolishment of states.

Lol, it's pathetic how much you've absorbed the ideology of your rulers. They were never your borders, not the least of which because they never existed.

No different than the world we have now, though probably with less walls and barbed wire arbitrarily strewn about.

What makes you think that they haven't? The US president essentially has jurisdiction over the entire planet, and with the advent of drones now has the power to summarily execute anyone, anywhere in the world. Somehow, the borders of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria (despite their thousands of years of shared history and culture and so on and so on) failed to stop the Americans from doing as they pleased!

Oh, okay, since you say so.

I'm not arguing for the abolishment of states and I didn't say at any point that I am speaking for marxists.

This implies that nations can be abolished right now. But they can't be, because the economic reality of the world, such as extreme wealth disparity, doesnt allow for it.

Because they are minor powers, the borders of Russia and China are very different where both have made it clear that they would resort to a full nuclear exchange with the USA if even an inch of their borders are compromised by US invasion.


Nice refutal, faggot.

lol u mad bro?