How is this in my interest?

Internationalism doesn't mean no borders.

How do you reconcile internationalism with borders?

What country do you live in?

Internationalism in the socialist sense just means dismissing national rivalries and differences in favour of cross-border collaboration with other proles and socialist groups.

Porkies use nationalism as a way to pit the working classes of various nations against each other. Internationalism just seeks to reject these divisions in favour of co-operation against the porkies. That doesn't mean you have to abolish borders altogether, although Marxist theory dictates that this will happen naturally once communism is achieved.

Fine. I will answer this once. but won't get dragged onto the topic. This thread is for you to tell me why it is a good idea. If you're selling something then you should be able to do this.

I support the idea of a nation/state because

Above are some of the main benefits of borders.

Now the alternative, no borders would mean

A single entity making laws for 8bn people. I'd love to see the laws that suit all these people. Completely unaccountable, like a bigger version of the democratic deficit apparent in the EU, where a guy 2000 miles away makes decisions for you

These are the main benefits of borders and issues with no borders that I see, though I can imagine many other issues with a no borders situation.

UK

scotland, voted yes

It's not.

Grabbing barbed wire with your bare fist is not at all in your interest- don't do it! The hand outlined in the picture is not real. It's a drawing! If you try this you will hurt yourself!

he strikes again.

I don't know that much about immigration into the UK but if it's anything like America, borders don't exist to keep people out, they exist to regulate how many people come in and how they're treated. A Mexican migrant laborer in the US is guaranteed to get paid and treated like shit by his employer, so citizens of the country get pushed out of jobs by workers who will work for much cheaper. Without borders workers wouldn't have to worry about this since immigrants would get paid whatever the minimum wage is.

Nationalism is just a spook.

Its a long term goal for socialism, not a sort term goal within capitalism, like some people seem to think.

...

I don't want to living beyond a normal life span.
Hell, I might kill myself before I get too old.

None of this is opposed to abolishing borders.

This isn't' what communist want to do. It's a long term goal for socialism, but it can't be done until material conditions in poorer countries are improved.

The issue is not emigration but cucks like you who don't emigrate
If brownies are ruining your country why don't you take your white ass money to a country were life is cheap and honkies like you are trated like royalty

All cuck excuses, go conquer new lands for the whiteman.

Kek

Because having to pay for boreaucratic garbage to travel around the world sucks, so is needing visa annd permits to work

International Brotherhood world wide.

No more borders keeping us Apart.

Its a simple question to answer, not a deflection to anything since its fundamental to your question.

you can go where you want to

I already can, pretty much.

what if I don't want to

Borders are a spook but that doesn't mean that they're *currently* not useful for building revolution for a native country. Class-unconscious proles are very easily swayed by nationalist rhetoric, and you don't bring them to the left side by ignoring that then wondering where the right-wing uprising came from.

You can doesn't mean you must you know?

Admit it's a pretty weak argument though.

But I benefit from this spook oh god how I hate that word and it's a very useful one

pls be in fife

It gives rootless people permission to go everywhere, which is more important than you going everywhere.

These rootless people are your greatest ally, so playing to their needs is in your own interest.
They are your ally, after all. Who wouldn't want to support their ally?

You don't?

It's not at the moment because you believe in nations. People like me can't even comprehend a nation. When you stop identifying with something that seems to you to refer to nothing, you want to experience the whole world as much as you can without simplifying it.

"No borders, no nations" isn't the goal, it's just a side-effect of communism. And understanding the artificiality of nations is just a consequence of being Marxist.

A nation is every ancestor that lived in a group of similar genetic people, who have self respect, and respect for the past and the future of their people.

Nationalism is only to do with borders for mongrel nations and they are fucked anyway to begin with,

nice spooks

It isn't you should care more your own people, and race then some filthy brown goblins good sla-I mean worker. Wait, what they're willing to work for a twentieth of your wage?

Civic Nationalism is the spook, real people have lived alongside their people since the dawn of humanity, it's not a spook, it's all there is ever going to be.
We are going to have to decide who gets genocide quite soon unless forced agricultural means that destroy any hope of repeating the yields because of intensity, that is too much work anyway. A couple of billion will need to done in.

now that's pretty spooky m8

This thread happens every week. It is obviously Holla Forums bait.

I feel personally feel sad there are leftists out there still supporting the Soros open borders meme.I think it comes from a good place but the capitalists figured out a long time ago that they were better able to divide and exploit a "multi-cultural society" then they were one organized on more open and explicit class lines.

How enlightened of you.

Which is EXACTLY why you want borders. Presumably a part of your desire to see the world is to get a taste of the vibrant and different cultures? Get rid of borders and these won't be far behind.

people have a right to live and go where they want

you are literally retarded

Breaking news, Stalinists admit to not wanting to change the system.

It's not. You are exploiting third worlders through your citizenship of a first world country with legal protections such as minimum wage and the welfare state that force the rich to give you some of the third world's extracted wealth. It is not in your interest to abolish this system, only to give yourself a better position in it. The real question is if the third world will be able to overthrow the tyranny of the first world, and then collectively the entire proletariat will be able to overthrow the capitalists.

Marxists consider a priority to abolish private property.

Whether several bourgeois states should become one bourgeois state or not - is irrelevant.

wew

This is such a weak bait, I felt the necessity to give you (You) out of pity.

Good point, well made

Well this is an interesting take if nothing else. But I think irrelevant. If you got rid of borders tomorrow the best you'd accomplish would be switching one lowest rung for another. Worst case scenario, those at the to would consolidate further and everyone else would see their standard of living reduced to the lowest common standard, ie everyone in the west living like Africans.

kek. The third world are more materialist than you or I. China has zero interest in the rest of the world. The nation has primacy there. And they have Africa locked down for the foreseeable future. The ME is in largely self-imposed chaos. South America, the nations that have embraced capitalism are powering on ahead of the faux socialists

Maybe some of the resident anarkeks would like to address the question in OP head on instead of spewing memes?

...

Who are you that we should care about your specific interests?

...

Last I checked the people shouting "no borders, no nations" were not fighting for Communism but for neoliberalism.

It is not, since free movement of peoples only serves the interests of bourgeois hegemony by hurting unions and pitching immigrants against poor who already live in the country.

Whether this is in your interest or not depend largely on the economc system you're living in.

Take the ocean for example. It's international.
Cities or regions of study can be a thing, no need to dismantle nations for that.
Up until very recently humanity progressed very well, especially the west.

Despite nations. Even back then scholars would go all over the place, without wanting to mush everything up.

Wholesale open borders only benefits people who don't have borders to begin with.
Anyone else could "rise and progress" in their homeland.

If you don't have a homeland, though, and still want a slice of the homeland pie, then, yeah, you gotta tell the goyim to open the doors.

lel

The proletariat have no nation or country, we can't take from you what you never had in the first place.

The upside of the abolition of borders is that you can move freely as you please. The bourgeoisie already live like this. If being locked to one country was really the best way to live, you'd think the bourgeoisie of all people would be living in that fashion, but they live the polar opposite lifestyle. This alone should indicate to you that nationalism is a slave ideology.

...

I wouldn't say I don't want this to happen. But to try push it from above (multi-kult, mass migration), when beliefs and values are so disparate around the world, just strikes me as counter-productive.

I am western everyman. You can't sell me on the idea good luck building support for it.

Anyone heard of Project Bluebeam?

Tbh, free movement of people might be the kick that EU needs to abandon it`s nationalistic tendencies. This is the only foreseeable way that I can see the union taking to reach Pan-Europeanism.

I think you've got it backwards. I think the recent resurgence of the right is in direct response to the top-down approach to immigration and too much too fast.

The rise of the right is due to the collapse of European capitalism. Immigrants are merely one of many scapegoats.

ey b0ss

Pretty sure the people marching and joining right wing groups would say otherwise. migration is assumed to have been the biggest factor in Brexit. Unless you can prove otherwise I'm going to go with my gut and what polling suggests.

Why don't the jews just go to Israel then if that's true

...

BUT THE WITCHES

THEY KEEP SUMMONING THE ORCS

Fine if you say so. Then maybe you can answer question in OP. How is advocating for no borders in my interest?

not even that user, just came here to say kys
nah

Already answered.

...

And the neoliberals are that one group. Communists don´t give shit since it will come about as a side effect of Communism and is therefore pointless to fight for it.
ant it.

But I do have a nation? It provides, as well as sense of community and security all the things this guy here mentioned.

I disagree that I personally am exploiting anyone, but I guess that's a matter of perception. I mean presumably if this guy thinks like that he also thinks that every Israeli should be punished collectively for the settlements, or that everyone in Saudi should be gassed cause their leaders support ISIS.

Their jetsetting lifestyle is not a result of lack of borders but excess of cash.

Nations exist for the benefit of of the bourgeoisie, not you. That you get some spooky sense of belonging from your slave ideology is irrelevant.'

And that guy is an MTM retard still living in the 20th century. While his points may have been true 40 years ago, this is certainly no longer the case, the welfare state is either dying or already dead, and many of the "first world" poor have already rejoined the ranks of the global poor.

They use their money to live a borderless lifestyle.

I meant MTW

It's not in your interest under capitalism. It's a reason why we need global socialism now.

Nations exist based on more than just the whims of the capitalists. Scotland has a coherent history of almost 1000 years as one example. And even today nations can fall apart if teh glue of shared culture and history isn't strong.

You're arguing this ass-backwards anyway. Nations do exist, whether you like this or not. In their existence they offer some commonality to their citizens. You want me to give this up. Without calling me a spooked retard, make your case.

Social classes predate capitalism, the bourgeois are just the most recent incarnation of the ruling class.

Nations are not held together by "shared culture and history", go look up base v superstructure. And materialism, while you're at it.

And no, nations do not "exist." You can keep repeating it, but it won't become more true. A nation is just a fixed idea that people are led to believe in and act as if it were real. If no one believed in it anymore, it would cease to be.

the same is said of religion, race, sex, literally anything which can make people feel like they belong to some sort of team.

Korea had a similar history to Scotland. Didn't stop them from breaking up. Or Germany for most of its history. Or Italy for most of its history.

If you believe this you should never analyse European politics again, you are just too retarded.

No. You are one person, that doesn't speak for everyone.

So your argument for nations serving the proletariat is that… they have history? Everywhere has history, and none of that history points to nations serving the proletariat.

If your point was Scotland was a distinct, unified national entity for a thousand years, you couldn't be more wrong. Most of Scottish history is of various Scottish sects fighting each other, and lowlanders and highlanders fighting each other more generally. If it wasn't for the English acting as the "common enemy" and rival of sorts, it's doubtful a "Scottish" identity would have ever formed.

Hell, the term "Scots" came from the Roman term for the Irish, "Scotti".

I speak for more than you think. And my thinking is certainly more mainstream than this guy's

Your entire argument seems to pivot on your own interpretation that nations have no right to exist, therefor don't exist, therefor you don't have to justify breaking them down. Good luck with wining debates given 90%+ of the worlds population DO accept nation states as a thing.

Let me rephrase OP. How would my life be better without borders?

So your whole argument is just one big argumentum ad populum. I therefore take you back to this post:

You can about as you please without legal frameworks tying you down.

Your life would be better without capitalism. And communism without borders is better than communism with borders.

In what way?

In that my line of thinking is reflected in recent events such as referendum.

The only argument for naton I've presented was here

Nations ARE the current reality. YOU are advocating to change this. How do you convince me to support you?

Honestly I'm pretty disappointed. You're all great at the rhetoric and argumentation but if you cannot concisely make the case for one of your fundamental principals. it's all kinda a waste.

And to the 'no borders is about the world under communism not as things stand' crowd, consider my question to be targeted more at pic related than yourselves.

No one here really gives a shit about borders though? Only memetard Holla Forumsyps think it's a big deal.

So you don't speak for anyone but yourself and you suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Right, got it.

Take a step back Sally. I didn't say I speak for everyone one every issue. However the concerns I've raised (that have been dismissed as usual) are common concerns in Europe atm. I point you at the UK Brexit referendum and the response. The government acknowledges immigration was the MAIN factor in deciding the vote. So in that sense, yes. I do speak for a lot of people when I raise these questions.

Are you one of these faggots that rants about Poles and browns at self service checkouts?

Nah. Poles are based. Had there been a third option on the ballot, 'kick the fucking pakis out', I know which way it would have gone.

This. I wish it was possible to be a leftist and still believe the sad truth that pakis just don't belong in the uk

Lad, the leave vote will only potentially get rid of Poles out of those two.

The EU referendum really chafed my cock tbh. We'll have to keep all the 'muh elf n safety' regulations to export there, the logic completely flipped when it came to the fictional federal army (We need to leave the EU to make the UK stronger- We need to leave the EU because they want a stronger army) and all of our economy now rests on service and finance which are going to leave for Germany now.

Cameron is a fucking twat, as bad as Blair tbh.

Blame the scummy generation before us that don't shut their mouths about bootstraps and lazy millennials yet had casual Fridays, a house and a Ford Cortina on minimum wage.

Oh I get this. But the message sent was clear. They know immigration was the deciding factor. IF they choose to keep ignoring the issue the backlash will only be harder next time.

Except they aren't. They're a sort of modern social and ideological fiction. What's real is the people that believe in the nations and state institutions meant to enforce them.

But, as I pointed out before, these institutions don't exist for your benefit, they exist for the benefit of the bourgeoisie at your detriment. The only real effect of nations for you is you being holed up on one arbitrary plot of land that you can't comfortably leave without a fairly significant amount of money. Hardly some great benefit.

Nice one m8 dose twats wont no wot hit em

1. nations don't exist and are just constructs superimposed by the bourgeoisie

2. you can't provide any objective example of a "nation" or non-arbitrary definition of one

3. even aside from all of that, what do borders have to do with nations to begin with, especially considering they too are both arbitrary and imaginary

It might not be at the moment. Under the current mode of production no borders presents problems.

In a communist world tho, there's really no point to borders and nothing to enforce them anyways as there'd be no states.

tbh you've given us very little to work with. If you just explain why you think being against borders is dangerous, it would be easier for us to address specifically whatever you're so worked up about.

This is your brain on communism. I give up. You win again left/pol/.

Good luck with being a retard. I'm sure you'll feel right at home back on Holla Forums

Well it seems impossible for this place to answer a question without another question. As soon as I answer your question the thread is dragged off topic into debate about abstract notions. That's some Saul Alinsky shit right there.

It has been24 hours and not a single straight answer that doesn't work on the minority position that countries don't exist to begin with.

I know when I'm wasting my time.

You can't get an answer because aside from being an idiot your entire premise is a flawed one, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

kys faggot

WEW

also
MAXIMUM OVERWEW

My premise is flawed? THe premise that nations exist is flawed? How about you go try walk from south to north Korea and tell me nations don't exist?

The truth is, and I knew this when posing the question, that open borders hurts the working class in the west. Too poor to enjoy the benefits, too insignificant to compete in the world where people are willing to do your job for much less than you are. One person ITT had the integrity to admit as much.

I don't like this kind of thinking but it is clearly the case. In all meaningful senses (borders, domestic laws, {{{culture}}}) nations exist. Now whether or not they are a manifestation of of an abstract idea is irrelevant to this discussion. People here advocate for removing borders. I want to hear if they think the immediate, tangible consequences are worthwhile? Nobody has attempted to make this justification, instead trying to redefine the debate. So I figure I'm wasting my time here.

What you just described are states. By your earlier definition and citation of scotland, North and South Korea should all be the same nation.

Everybody is burgoisie then.

Yes and that's the result of global capitalism and neo-liberalism. The left didn't set those policies even if there are some anarcho-liberals that support them.

If everyone in the united states suffered the same mass hallucination caused by solar radiation that president obama was actually Clifford the Big Red Dog, and they believed it, would that make it true?

It doesn't matter how big the mad-house is, you're all still nuts.

You don't get to act bootyblasted about your premise and smug about your OP when your OP is thinly veiled smug bullshit to being with. Your "premise" was misrepresenting your opponents view so that you could claim victory down the line, and now you're just salty that it didn't work.

Leftypol concensus is open borders to refugees in the EU is neoliberal bullshit and you deliberately glossed over that by saying we needed to show you how it was in your interest, clearly implying we agreed it was in your interest.

History and culture are part of what shapes a nation. A nation is unlikely to survive if these are too diverse. Just see the collapse of Sykes-Picot in the ME. So sure. The nations of Iraq and Syria were artificial. But what comes nexyt WILL ALSO be a 'state' albeit formed on slightly more lasting foundations. Nations/states are how people organise. If you advocate no borders then you better at least be offering me a hint at how things will be worked.

Misrepresenting my fucking hoop.

Get your hoop around the idea those are the people referred to as anarcho liberals ealier bucko.

States are how people actually organize. Nations are just how people think they organize. Nations are the perception, states are the reality. And certainly you will find problems when perceptions don't match reality. But, that still doesn't mean that you're seeing clearly.

As for your supposed critique of diversity, you should know that both the USSR and the United States, the biggest super-powers of the last century, had many races, religions and so called "nations" within them, and yet there were the two most powerful states on earth.

Not the guy pretending to be interested, actually interested but am a lazy fuck who doesn't read theory.

What would make a nation? A land mass full of people who agree they're a nation? Is the distinction becoming antiquated due to the lack of border changes since the end of WW2?

A nation is just an arbitrary identity. If enough people can get tricked into believing it suddenly you have a legitimate nation.

It's in the interest of states to cultivate a national identity which legitimizes them, if they have control over an area long enough, they will get most people there to believe in this identity through their control over education, trade and politics.

Thanks for the help Broz

Yugo posters best poster

borders might not exist in real life, but they are pretty useful :^)

Typically, people who share a common history. But the nation is quite arbitrary, looking at German unification proves that. The material basis for the nation is so fluid it can hardly be said to be more than a metaphysical entity, and it's worship that of mysticism.

Why is there a right wing nationalist resurgence in Germany, one of the strongest economies in the EU, but none in Spain, one of the weakest?

yes, your premise is flawed, first in that nations exist, second in that you think the removal of borders entails throwing open the borders and saying "ogay gais gome on in :—–DDDDDDD" and nothing else changes

with the elimination of the concept of private property, the material exploitation hampering the non-western world vanishes and in a large part the circumstances that impel migration to the West would as well. aside from a variable increase in material comfort, there wouldn't be any need because the political conditions that exist in one place would exist in another.

so don't worry. the browns aren't going to get you (which is what this is all really about).

What an embarrassment of a post.

All of those things are spooks and none of them exist.

That doesn't make any sense at all, especially considering that just about every European nation until the 20th century was made up of numerous ethno-cultural groups. Another completely arbitrary qualifier for your "nation."

lol more artificial than France and England? Anyway, what does "artificial" matter? These people are of the same race, presumably, and the same nation, presumably, with all your requisite qualifiers for a nation. Shared history, shared culture, shared language. So what's the problem?

So, you're saying people of shared interest don't form groups?
Don't roam around the world and settle somewhere.
Don't put up either figurative or literal fences around their territory.
And possibly call those nations?

You probably think territorial animals are spooks, too?
Right?

Humans are not specifically territorial animals or no such thing as nomads would exist. We do have very plastic brains and as a result, we adapt our behavior to our material conditions.
And nations are a relatively new concept in mankind's history.

Agriculture.

Wow, are you telling me economy have an influence on how people behave and what they believe? Who would have tought…

Michio Kaku is not a reliable source user. Enjoy dying.

that's because this board is filled with pie in the sky philosowank majors who desperately try to justify their worthless degree by debating which 18th century German philosopher was edgier

It's a good thing, too, because if this board was serious it'd be dangerous.