The conservatives have an almost completly save majority in the UK

Pure ideology

In this country we worship the banks and big business, even though we don't even produce anything anymore. Pretty much whatever they want they can get. David Cameron's government introduced 'workfare' where people on welfare would be forced to work low-skill jobs directly for corporations for no wages. What, you mean paid employees get fired because we can literally make people work for free now? Heh, there was no way to predict that :^)

Also, the UK is accepting """""self-employment""""" which actually means working for a corporation delivering packages or caring for the elderly on a contract basis (ie. each package is worth 30p), since these workers are """""self-employed""""" they don't need to be paid minimum wage, have employment protection, they have to pay for their own transport on the job and aren't paid for travel time, et cetera, in real terms many of these jobs pay £3 an hour or less.

Socialism is an international idea. We have to spread it to every country.

Save me fam.

That's not an argument. Are you a trotskyist? Unless you are, you don't have a leg to stand

Corbyn fucked up by saying he wouldn't reduce immigration. Not sure what he was thinking tbh, Labour all but dead now. All he had to say was reduce low-skilled immigration (didn't even have to say Browns/Muslims, we all know what it means) to help the de-industrialised areas of the North. I just assume he doesn't care at this point.

Not sure why people moralise mass immigration so much. Nothing has set back the left more in the last 30 years than mass immigration. Yet it is seen as 'Lefty Obligation Number 1' to let third worlders experience liberal capitalism rather than build socialism.

The figures in the pic are relative figures of chronological change, not absolute figures of instantaneous size, like the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_median_wage

Note that UK workers are the 3rd best paid in Europe.

The figures in OP's pic are still useful to show that UK economic regulation is turbocucked, but they shouldn't be misinterpreted to give the impression of the country being driven into 3rd-world poverty yet.

The west is largely responsible for fucking up the countries these people come from in the first place. I can kind of sympathise with anti immigration but it seems deeply spooky considering that nationalism is meaningless, and I don't see why westerners have a right to be better off than people in the world at large

The masses of our own populace lived in virtually identical oppressive squalor at the height of the gilded age, yet one set of nations had successful socdem reforms, while the other remained in the 1870s sociopolitically.

We can't fix the 3rd world by evacuating it, only by fixing it. But we can certainly roll back everything the workers of the 1st world accomplished over the last century by flooding us with poverty and backwardness.

It's harder to advance politically when foreign nations split up your former-empire amongst themselves, consistently coup your popular leaders, and fund traditionalist terrorist groups

Until Western foreign policy dramatically changes and interventionism ends, how are they supposed to become independent?

See, those are good, honest, productive ideas for unfucking things. Mass economic immigration? Not so much.

So we just close the door on refugees with one hand, and with the other we ask our leaders to stop bombing them? I can accept that this is a short term solution, but ending interventionist policy is a long-term fight, and Corbyn (who I believe had spoken against interventionism) can't do it by himself.

It would be hypocritical to be against interventionism so that they could build themselves a better country, but then not accept them when they run away from the effects of interventionism. How do you expect to build leftism if you're not willing to show solidarity?

Socialism has always been an international movement. Nationalism is opposed to socialism.

Also, nice US statistics, as if it wasn't obvious enough that you fucks are just riding the cocks of American prison gangs.

Because the conservative party is for normal decent people. The united leftist front that labour has become is not, it's for people who go out on marches raising banners calling for the murder of tories.

For the UK to become the venezuela of europe, it needs a venezuelan tier population. That is not there, and never will be, no matter how many diversities you import.

...

...

There are more productive ways to take care of refugees than scooping up (a statistically minute proportion of the total) desperate wretches and dropping them directly into the most expensive places to live in the world. For instance, we could subsidize Syria and its neighbors, supporting many times more people in similar living conditions for the same money. Not to mention it would keep more good people closer to their troubled homelands and families, accelerating stabilization and subsequent rebuilding.

Instead, we're burning so much money in this pseudo-humanitarian farce, we've actually started cannibalizing foreign aid budgets to pay for 1st-world "refugee" hosting:
cips-cepi.ca/2016/03/16/migration-as-a-threat-to-foreign-aid/

We're reducing aid that could stop the violence, stripping away people who could fix it, tearing at the prosperity of the working class in both regions, stoking cultural tensions, and fueling the flames of war. In the long term, the big picture, mass immigration is totally unjustifiable.

Pandora's Box has already been opened, if you wanted to do something about globalization, it should have been done 40 years ago. Stopping immigration or attacking immigrants won't do jack shit.

Why?

That sounds a lot like the arguments used at the apex of the gilded age to buttress ruthless migration, commodity transfer, colonialism, debt bondage, transnational companies, and other wonders of the free market. And yet that didn't stop their system being torn down by the World Wars and replaced with a new global protectionist regime, one which lasted clear into the 1970s.

"Globalism=open borders" is on par with "capitalism is just human nature".

Because it's simultaneously too small to fix the problems that cause it, yet big enough to cause even more problems.

As opposed to enforcing retrograde policies on boarder controls.

If you stop immigration, capitalists will simply find another way to circumvent the costs you're attempting to impose on them. They'll outsource, bring in guest workers, automate, increase precarious labor, etc.

Anti-immigration rhetoric is just another form of divide and conquer. Actually stopping immigration won't do anything, and being anti-immigrant will only serve to strengthen the right and make the left look like hypocrites.

border*

How does letting in a tiny fraction (but big enough to fuck over the 1st world) of the 3rd-world poor help the MASSIVE majority of 3rd-worlders who can NEVER migrate? The best answer I can think of is reparations, which amount to an economic drop in the bucket.

And yet walling off immigration, offshoring, and debt-bondage in the 20th century caused massive increases in employee compensation and working conditions, socdem reformism was eventually too strict to wriggle out of. Face it, we did it before, we can do it again.

And to top it off, it's a constitutional monarchy.

Uh, no. The economic situation in the mid-20th century was vastly different from what it is today. There's a reason why the SocDem bullshit all fell apart in the late 70s. There was a narrow window to save it that's already passed. You can't undo what's already been done.

Yes, political victories by rightists against leftists, same as the leftist political victories in that created it in the early 1900s.

We need to get leftism back on track (throw out the PC social nonissue morons and neolibs, get back to populist economics) and ignore modern rightism's shields (evangelical fearmongering and neocon lolbertism). That done, restoring the socdem basis from which we were reaching forward to true socialism will be as simple a matter as before.

I think that is a highly disputable contention. Compare us to the 1800s gilded age: We have massive offshoring, human bodies being shipped around wherever's needed by porky, organized labor vilified and suppressed, consumer debt out of control, huge economic inequality, puppet regimes, fake "middle class" populations arising in the 3rd-world, private transnational entities more powerful than most governments, governments in debt to corporations they should legally be capable of bringing to heel, fake wars used to spur on human desperation…

The same problems demand the same solutions.

You know what they didn't have in the 1800s?

Instantaneous telecommunications that makes running businesses anywhere in the globe both cheap and efficient.

Bochinche, bochinche

Unless you're referring to the scores of telecommuters that still don't exist because office middle managers are socially domineering buffoons, porkies were quite able to instantly communicate with other porkies through wire telegraphs throughout the 1800s.

Also, I feel I need to stress how particularly inane the meme exemplified by equating laissez-faire capitalism with "showing solidarity" between workers is. You can't enforce laws without enforcing the borders those laws apply within, you can't enforce strikes without forcing away scabs, you can't enforce sustainable prices if you allow dumping, and you can't have socialism without an absolute refusal to let capitalists sabotage your economy. Denying protectionism is admitting lolbertarianism, period.

What the fuck instantaneous means of communication did they have back then that even compared to the likes of CCTV and the internet

Holla Forums go home

The big breakthrough of the internet isn't its ability to let porky instantly telecommunicate with porky around the world (which various technologies back to the wire telegraph have allowed), but its having allowed us proles the ability to do the same.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's helpful to either of us in the long term to let them in.