Tfw your peeps do not show up for your spooked anti-refugee referendum...

I'm not as optimistic and really doubt the benefit of solidarity with an ideological enemy. Maybe you think it's a partnership of convenience against a mutual adversary and maybe you'll win, and the grateful muslims will come over to your side after and join you. Or the demographic reality means the opposite will happen.

That's just.. stupid to me and asinine to me. Call me pol if you want. You're just demonstrating your stupid knee jerk stupidity by defining every idea without any merit other than "X opposes it, so it must be wrong"

I'm on the same boat. You'll never be my comrade.

Go suicide bomb an empty shack.

By your own logic, the extremely vast majority of people are your enemy.

I see that Holla Forumstastic word filter became a thing.

The fuck kinda nonsense are you on about?

No, they're bullshit for precisely the reason pol is. And pol is a literal joke by comparison. Oh wait… that must… mean…

Fuck off. Why don't you try to challenge yourself for once by considering the unique challenges of different situations.
Prudence isn't pol.

This is what we are talking about, dogmatic according to whom? You are begging the question.

What's the alternative to taking in refugees?

Being against immigration and for national borders, to the point of denying the possibility of communism, because brown people are inherently violent and every immigrant is a terrorist and all muslims believe the same things and act the same way, is Holla Forums. This isn't about fucking muslims anyways. Unless the only border you support is between muslims and everyone else.

Oh wait I got this confused with the OTHER thread where nazbols are arguing that we need racially homogeneous nation states for all eternity. I just woke up.

its the same thread really. Nazbol tankies like Orban, they read about him in BreitFart.com

uncomradely

tbh representational democracy is shit

i dont care about the protest party, i did not vote either, not even invalid, not goign to legitimate a protest priate party.

that invalid vote was dank as fuck though.

Democracy is shit, I give you that, but representation?

representative democracy = you vote for parties that get into a unicameral or bicameral national assembly
that is BS

You do realize that "democracy" in its actual history always meant some kind of slavery, right? Literal or wage-slavery, in our case.

It's not my fault that you are confused with your terms, but communists aren't democrats. You are implying that there are or can be "good kind of democracies". My bet is you'd call that "direct democracy", but that is a liberal pipe dream.

What you need to understand is that communism in its theory and its practice is more than what any democratic ideology could ever offer and that calling yourself a democrat is a defeat on your side to the pressures of hegemonic ideology.

im a demsoc, democracy in its original meaning is when you can have an equal vote and an equal shere of wealth in a society.
so im all for that definition

Jodi is a shit

Malala a shit

Democracy in its original meaning is rule by the majority. Communists want to abolish any possible form of coercion, and you don't. I can not respect that.

wtf even is a "demsoc"???

Very convincing.

Give me one example when democracy actually did this, you cretin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece

Stop it. YOU are the one who is behaving like a Holla Forumsack.

Well considering she a psychoanalyst id say shes willing to believe in a good deal of bullshit so she can fuck herself.

Jodi Dean isn't a psychoanalyst.

You realize how sociopathic anti-refugee people sound? Like you're talking about buying fucking cattle and not saving people from certain death or worse

Have you not read her fucking work? She very clearly draws alot from psychoanalysis. Shit, just look it up, its obvious as fuck.

I did. It is a fact that she is not a psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysts spend a lot of time sitting in their clinic, trying to provide a discursive environment where turds like you can better themselves. Philosophers, on the other hand, such as Jodi Dean, have a completely different type of work. Just like all philosophers she draws from a lot of different fields and schools of thought.

The arguments in that video could be simply restated without any reference to psychoanalysis and still remain sound – not that you'd care about it, since it's clear you are not here to learn.

top tier democracy fam

This' how we roll around these parts.

They should stay in thier country and fight. The ones who come here are cowards and "economic refugees". How can you call yourself a communist if you want to import scabs?

kek

Is there any context for this quote? Because she openly campaigns against actually reactionary policies rooted in fundamentalist Islam.

If someone says even one thing you don't like it means everything they've done is invalidated ok

...

Seeing a her work (or rather her only work of real note) is basically a almost religious fundamentalist Leninist that basically sees a Stalinist USSR as the greatest form of communism the world has to offer, im gonna still say shes full of shit and doesn't deserve our attention but rather ridicule. You can call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant or unwilling to learn because they dont wanna believe the same bullshit you seem to enjoy, dosnt mean your right and that Jodi Dean isnt full of shit.

Did i hurt your feelings? :^)

mamma mia, some one-a is a drunk-a

Pretty sure she's just saying making sweeping generalizations and alienating Muslim communities further will only lead to radicalization

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

these are working class people fleeing a war not ideological enemies.

you've bought into "DEY ARE SAUDI ARABIAN RIGHT WING ISIS DEATH SQUADS IN DISGUISE" propoganda. you've fallen for the Holla Forums jpgs that claim 100% of them want you dead personally for being gay and the other 200% are rape gangs

LOOG AD MY PEBBLES
LOOG AD DESE GUMBALLS

The gumballs are just a visual aid since you predictably ignored the numbers themselves, being a liberal retard and all.

this is addressing the issue of taking in refugees through programsm like unhcr, or trudeau's pinky dreams.
i agree that it is not a solution at all. but here we are talking about hundreds of thousands showing up at the borders BECAUSE we neglected the problem. so what else you can do, if they are already here? shooting at unarmed and innocent people over a fence is JUST NOT my leftist solution.

It has nothing to do with benefiting us. The point is that they are fellow humans and it benefits them at minimal expense to us.

From everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/

THIS. Mass immigration has never, ever fixed anything. It is a relief valve for porky to remove activist/destabilizing elements from poor areas, and inject contagious poverty into the labor markets of rich areas.

There are many potentially useful tools in 3rd-world development, EVACUATION is not one of them.

Wow, gee, I dunno. Maybe instead of pointlessly throwing away money by attempting to feed, house, educate, and employ millions of 3rd-worlders in the most expensive PPP places to live in the entire world, we could use that same money to give similar quality of life to hundreds of millions? Near-term economics aside, perhaps incinerating mountains of cash to ship people across the world from their temporarily perilous homeland, and inflaming conflict by plucking people from the central region of one culture and dropping them into a totally alien culture, instead of spending that money to help them in or near their homes and families, we could try to save precious time, lives, and money by keeping their regional community as intact as possible to promote the rapid cessation of hostilities and return to their status quo?

Why, it's almost as if the "refugee" "crisis" and the "need" to "accept" "diversity" is part of an intentional conspiracy to intensify 3rd-world strife and drive their desperate populations to destabilize the 1st-world working class? Oh wait, IT IS:
cips-cepi.ca/2016/03/16/migration-as-a-threat-to-foreign-aid/
huffingtonpost.com/adam-moe-fejerskov/foreign-aid-europe-refugee-crisis_b_8869794.html
theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/10/poor-lose-out-as-aid-is-diverted-to-the-refugee-crisis-africa

dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

No, just no, you're a dumb liberal.

check out morality doctrines by hegel
morality is helpful as long as it does not stand in the way of dialectic materialism
it also is helpful for the left on the long run that such refugee crisis situations expose the inevitable failure of global capitalism to create prosperity. of course the gut reaction to them is ultra-xneophobia, but as those people have no plan, they will fail very soon.
all in all, morality is useful for socialism as long as it exposes porky hypocrisy.

top kek
now orban said they will take in refugees on personal applications but will deny collective asylum requests. this will be reflected in the fucking constitution.

mandiner.hu/attachment/0182/181512_orban_alaptorvenybe_kerul_a_csoportos_betelepites_tiltasa.jpg

Auntie Merkel got her way with her subordinates again

...

migrants != refugees, the latter are supposed to leave at some point by definition

there is no macroeconomic cause, they are fleeing america's freedom bombings

Regarding your later point, I also think it's quite strange how so many pro-migrant persons have taken to making the demographics argument to support their position.

I guess the point of view is: migrants are cheap labor, end of story.

Which makes sense for a certain perspective.

But as you say, secularism will disappear as quickly. It is a fact.

if this is actually possible it only means yurop's legal system is a fragile clusterfuck that was doomed to fail
the US has literal theocrats that have never once made ground

in other words you have no actual counter to it

Christianity is not Islam. This stupid meme needs to dies. Cultures are not made of exchangeable parts. Christians are not nor have they often been theocrats. There is not a basis in text or tradition to demand theocracy. In fact, Christianity has existed in parallel to secular government for almost all of its history. Charlemagne didn't even want the pope to crown him. In Islam, from when Mohammed went to Mecca till now, this is not the case.

Islam is certainly among the less secular religions, but let's not pretend Christianity (and pretty much any other religion you might choose to mention) doesn't have deep theocratic roots. For one thing, Christianity's transformation from a mystical messianic Jewish hippy commune to a proper religion occurred with it being imposed on the Roman Empire. After that fell, basically all Christian monarchs (and by extension, their feudal nobility, and the sociopolitical order they enforced) justified their rule by divine right, as chosen instruments of God. The continued legacy of the Roman Empire on Christianity also produced a hierarchical deference to the church that varied somewhere between the power of the UN, and an outright empire, depending on the church's military strength at the time. And that doesn't even touch on entities like the Crusader States, various knightly orders like the Templars or Hospitaliers, and the Papal States that covered vast swathes of Italy until the late 1800s.

It is thanks only to a millennium of Enlightenment humanism since the dawn of the Age of Reason that Christianity has been beaten, broken, and made secular society's bitch against constant resistance at every step by the church and its adherents.

Make no mistake, (variously ignored) scripture aside, Moslems are our mirror image from a thousand years ago.

That had less to do with any aversion to theocracy, and more to do with a leeriness toward further splitting eastern and western Christendom.

Don't be disingenuous, we both know they'll never leave.

Their children they bring, or create, here that spend their formative years here will be used as the justification against deporting them, because you can't deport Ahmed, he's practically as American as you or I am.

And - like the millions of "guest workers" or illegals brought over - they'll retroactively claim that they were never intended to leave in the first place, and therefore everyone that wanted refugees predicated on them returning actually didn't care whether they left or not