Immigration is a pressure release valve where the bourgeoisie of one nation export proles to another nation to quell...

Immigration is a pressure release valve where the bourgeoisie of one nation export proles to another nation to quell revolutionary sentiment at home while the bourgeoisie of the nation that are importing the proles benefit from a new crop that they can super exploit with lower wages and worse working conditions. Only the bourgeoisie benefit.

If you support immigration you are actively hampering communist revolution and are nothing more than an edgey shitlib

Prove me wrong. You cannot.

Attached: Oekaki.png (500x250, 20.39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pewglobal.org/interactives/origins-destinations-of-european-union-migrants-within-the-eu/

Immigration is a consequence of geopolitics, primarily US/NATO foreign policy. It's got almost nothing to do with the domestic policy of the places people emigrate from, especially since a lot of those places are
FAILED STATES YOU FUCKING IDIOT

Like I said, you are hampering revolution

1. If the state is destroyed, they're not bourgeoisie, they're gangsters. You can't have capitalism without a state, because you don't have an authority upholding property law and minting currency.
2. People leaving because their home was glassed isn't "export". It's the foreign powers creating the conditions for immigration back home.

All bourgeoisie are gangsters
You are incorrect.

p -> q =/= q -> p
How exactly did the former bourgeoisie of these countries decide for NATO to turn their land into rubble?

The bourgeoisie of current day "failed states" are doing everything to hold on to their power and are encouraging immigration, especially of their key demographic (healthy childless fighting age males between the ages of 18 to 35) that are most likely to fight them in their weakened state. Communist revolutions have as a matter of historical fact overwhelmingly taken place in so called "failed states", most notably Imperial Russia and China.

Do not reply to any more of my posts, you are clearly uneducated.

Do Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.), Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and Southern Europe (Italy, Greece, etc.) all consist of failed states?

Oh yeah, that's the immigration you don't hear about because it's white people moving, so it's not really a problem. If you come from any of those regions you will know someone or hear about people with medical degrees and PhDs leaving those countries to go to Northern, Western and Central Europe to wait tables or work on construction sites.

...

You realize that immigrants are people with agency just like us? They just want to live in dignity like the fortunate of us. It's not some bourgeois grand conspiracy.

When people complain about immigrants they are thinking about the refugees from Africa and the Middle East, they don't care about migration inside the EU.

What's your point?

More immigrants to EU countries come from other European countries than they do from non-European countries.
pewglobal.org/interactives/origins-destinations-of-european-union-migrants-within-the-eu/

I agree. I would just add that importing people from the 3rd and 2nd world to the 1st also keeps late capitalism afloat in the 1st world by increasing demand.

Sure they do. One of the main reasons the EU exists is to bring wages down to the lowest levels within the EU through mobility. That fucks jobs up plenty.

Immigration is a spook and a scapegoat for reactionaries.

Bongs used to complain a lot about Poles takin their jebs. That's on of the ReasonS they voted leave.

there is just not enough room for everyone. So in these states revolutionary sentiment should go up. But the bourgeoise are actively behind every nationalism and so it is easy to redirect class hatred to foreign hatred; this in turn, while never stopping it (it's better to live in europe than in nigeria even if europe puts on anti immigrant laws) also breaks class solidarity; by fighting against immigrants the working class divides and the bourgeiose have a laugh at turf wars while they exploit the proletariat, which does not pay attention to class anymore.
I agree that mass unorganized immigration is the result of the social malaise of the original societies of these people, but fighting "against immigration" in a bourgeoise capitalist system is not only completely useless but hurting for the communist movement; the end of mass immigration from poor to rich countries is a side effect of capitalism, not its crucial point, and such a theme is so easily exploited by the higher classes (which KNOW immigration cannot be stopped, but benefit from marginalizing immigrants) that its stupid to support it. Through communism there would be no use for this kind of policy because there would not be this kind of super exploited realities and by consequence no need for people to leave their home en masse to take chance journeys.
To further my point I say; being against immigrants is like being against the homeless. Homeless are the result of bourgeoise housing profiting and as the immigrants create hatred between lower classes. Does that mean that 1 the bourgeoise want as many homeless people as they can 2 expelling homeless people from society benefits our movement? no, for the first point, as immigrants, bourgeoise want the homeless to their own term, they want control over this stuff to create the right environment of desperation without creating class sentiment, just resentment against the less fortunate. 2 this kind of fighting among the lower classes is just benefit of bourgeoise right wing politics, selling shit like class collaborationism and "social order" that are just chimeras under capitalism to justify repressing and exploiting measures.
If you are going to argue that we "should help them in their countries" under capitalism you are as much as a liberal with faith in the current system as the "immigrants never did anything wrong ever" pseudo -left social democrats; there is no hope to change the realities of geopolitics under capitalism, the bourgeoise are the prime and only benefactors of dividing the world in arbitrary and supposedly autonomous (read: the weak arbitrary region is enslaved by the strong one) regions that theorically represent some kind of mystical union of people by language/religion/the characteristic of the month. But seeing your flag I can understand that you are too stupid to see that you are a liberal (or a useful idiot fo right wing liberal parties) yourself, nationalism is exactly one of these retarded things that preaches one thing based on pipe dreams but it really just further certain interests of the bourgeoise, without being based on material reality or trying to help the communist cause; I would argue that exactly nationalism can easily be a cause for illegal immigration.

Not OP, but if one mentions the negative effects of immigration that doesn't mean one is against immigration. This black and white thinking is an American product. I can hate capitalism, but give me a choice between feudalism and capitalism and I'll actively choose capitalism.

We both agree that mass immigration is not ideal, but I won't pretend like it's all good (like the liberals) or all bad (like the conservatives), in fact, a value judgment is absolutely useless because as you say immigration will happen no matter what.

Well what I' saying is that immigration under capitalism is like climate change, unsolvable but it sucks. And it mainly sucks for the migrants but nearly everything for 3rd world people sucks so for them immigration is almost a hope, only problem is that its "short sighted": I understand completely a migrant that leaves his country under capitalism every time a capitalist country talks about "helpng them at home" its all horrifying lies and by leaving he can be more secure, but immigration itself will of course never change the structural problems of capitalism that lead to immigration themselves.
I don't think that "immigration" itself is bad, there are different types of human mobility: the problem is that mass, unorganized immigration is a deformed consequence of the horrors of capitalism in 3rd world countries (hypocritical how pseudo lefts bitch and shout about it but give exactly 0 fucks about like, child miners in congo or whatever, as immigration was a real apocalyptic problem while there are entire societies living in more dire situations) and without capitalism it would just disappear. As always no war but class war. Also I don't think "american thinking" has anything to do with this, just the outdated and reactionary ideology of nationalism, that divides the working class into seemingly autonomous conglomerates that should compete (or collaborate, but remember; never be really united!) betweeneach other

I support unrestricted immigration, provided that all immigrants are granted a rapid path to citizenship (>1 year), are required to be paid the same as and have the same benefits as native workers, and required to join a union, and have the same enforced legal rights as any other citizen.

If you advocate for immigration without these protections, then you can fuck right off.

Why side with the bourgeoisie of “your” country instead of foreign comrades? It’s workers of the world unite, not “unite with your bourgeoisie against the foreign working class”. Workers should recognize these immigrants as their brothers and allies in the fight against corporate exploitation and imperialist war. Together, they confront the same enemies. Class struggle may be national in character but it will always be one part in a greater international picture. Kill yourself, Nazbol scum

So you're against immigration as it happens now?

Obviously.
Screaming "let them in!!1" like a bleeding heart liberal without ensuring that capital won't benefit, and that immigrants won't become second-class citizens and scapegoats of reaction, is tactically and morally stupid.

What does that even mean? To be of the opinion that immigration is a good thing? To facilitate immigration through some action? To want more immigration for some reason? Explain, OP.

I'm guessing you're refering to illegal immigration.

Even if you build a massive wall and stop all aliens from migrating illegaly/massively deport them, what's stopping the bourgeoisie to outsorce your job/automate it? They are gonna try to manufacture on third world sweatshops regardless of immigrants. If anything, immigrants build a larger working class and allow to unionize easier.

Immigration is not the problem; that's the symptom. The problem is, yet again, capitalism. Immigrants are just the scapegoat for the bourgeoisie. The ones to blame for all capitalist failures.

When you actively work to destabilize (whether politically or economically) a nation, you'll get refugees/illegal aliens. Do you seriously think mexicans/latin americans want to abandon their homeland just because they can? Maybe some of them actually do, but the vast majority are forced to do so, because of neoliberal geopolitics. They very same geopolitics that destabilizes their home countries and turn them into a third world shithole.

Long-story-short: Don't blame the broke as shit illegal immigrant that is forced to sell his labor for slightly less than nothing, like any other member of the working class. Blame the piece of shit that forces him to abandon his homeland and to migrate to the US/Europe.

Instead of mass deporting them, unionize with them. Immigrants are working class as well.

cultural and linguistic barriers are huge transaction costs to unionizing. multi lingual armies and and union efforts have suceeded in the past, so it's not impossible- but it certailny makes the business much more difficult

a lot of the problems are caused just as much by overpopulation after medical practices improved after wwii… there wouldn't be so many people in the third world had they had their population grown under control. look at demographics from 1940 and 1900 and tell me something did not go wrong.

What, you mean like two colossal wars, a global pandemic, and a massive economic collapse?

i'm talking about the third world and the first world to some extent. the populations of the third world countries were quite small then and remained so until after world war 2. huge increases infertility and infant life expectancy created the labor army reserves to supply a constant stream of immigration to the first world for perpetuity at this point.

No, only for a few generations. Fertility rates go down as education rates go up.

You're conveniently ignoring apartheid and the US backed coup d'etats in cuba, guatemala, venezuela, Yugoslavia, etc.

While it's certainly true that some places, like africa, weren't as developed back then like other countries (the anglosphere), apartheid and the british empire had a lot to do with them being a mess today; much like latin america is still struggling with the drug war thanks to Nixon and his war on drugs.

Wanna effectively stop illegal aliens from coming to the us and want to stop refugees from flooding european countries? Stop messing with their countries. Simple as that.

Right now, here in the US we got mr Donald I-love-zionists Trump who not only did not stop all wars, but actually doubled down on military spending and the war on drugs; also the biggest cheerlead for Saudi Arabia (the perpetrators of 9/11) and fucking Israel.

Both demoshits and reichpublicunts love geopolitics, for completely different reasons, but ultimately both are a giant middle finger to the working class.

Neither immigrants, nor refugees are the problem. The problem are the dickheads in power that forces them to abandon their countries. I sure as shit wouldn't like to abandon the US, on an equivalent hypotetical scenario, since my life is here.

Tl; dr: Stop messing with their countries and both immigrants and refugees will have no necessity of coming to the US/going to europe.

i agree. i'm just saying that i'm not sure immigration can be monocausally pinned down to the neoliberal global order than just historical contingencies like rapid developing world population growth.

it's too late. the climactic patterns by historical contingency disproportionately affects the third world (e.g. late victorian "holocaust" caused el ninos). overconsumption is accelerating water crises in the developing world. the syrian civil war started in the wake of a years-long famine, for example. Sudanese crisis and other shit too is exacerbated by it. Gaza i read a few years ago is going to run out of water by 2020s. Immigration is already locked into the system by the future climate breakdown. a dialectic between climate patterns and man made catastophes will create a shitstorm.

of course let's not forget yemen, which was already suffering shitty climate and desertification BEFORE this whole saudi war business. the war is only tottering an unstable agricultural base and now were gonna see millions starve

This, the blubbering that anarchists do regarding immigrants shows how liberal and reflexively anti-american they are. Those immigrants aren't showing up here to help me organize my workplace. I live in burgerland and those countries are shit largely due to burger imperialism, but I had jack shit to do with that. No one called my ass up before they invaded Iraq.

death to amerikkka tbh

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Litteral NPC

It is when it’s not grounded in any theory, praxis or even practical politics, it’s feels over reals.

America's role in the problems around the world is way more real than immigrant's.

Managing immigration is a policy of a capitalist state, no matter if it's about granting moar permits by internationally minded liberal capitalists or halting the influx of people by nationalist capitalists, what the workers movement should do is trying to integrate the immigrating workers into its ranks. IWW used to be big precisely because they were open to racial and ethnic minorities like Blacks, Asians, Finns, Poles etc. and I recall someone in Italy(SI COBAS?) also does that by eg. accepting the immigrant workers instead of saying

I work with immigrants in manual labour jobs. None of who I've met (50-60) have a class consciousness, and quite a few are vehemently opposed to communism. Most don't care about the larger picture, just want to earn money and make the best possible life for themselves.

Also, you seem to have bought the liberal media story about how they're exactly the same as us.
I have nothing against immigrants, and I'm all for whoever can reach Europe to come here, but let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that these are 'temporarily embarrassed Europeans'. They have a different culture, value system, educational system, social structure, rules of behaviour, what constitutes good and bad manners, how one should treat others around them, etc. I don't know if you've ever been to the Middle East, but I have, and it is a completely different world.

How? How do you explain class struggle to someone who can't speak your language or a common language? How do you find these workers? Do you just approach random black people on the street and assume they're fresh off the boat? Why would they join a union and in their minds 'stir up trouble' if their position is already precarious?

I agree with you, I'm just asking how you'd overcome some practical issues.

Most people aren’t anti-American for no reason

this.

Just like pretty much everyone else?

In the sense of lacking even a "trade union consciousness" they most certainly are much like the majority of population.

I'm not talking about that at all, them having other customs and more importantly being more conservative compared to most Europeans(at least those in the western Yurop) is a bit of a different issue than what I'm considering at the moment.

Obviously it's not the matter of walking up to someone and saying "Hey kid, wanna /ss/ join a union?" But in general it's an issue without a good answer in the current conditions, mostly since the current period is that of a general passivity among the workers, and it is hard to work with people who don't understand a language well, have different customs and aren't willing to fight for their demands if same applies to the natives, even if a bit less. To bring up the IWW once more: a century ago immigrants without a good grasp on English could also fight for their rights with a ferocity not worse than the general working population because the shitty conditions forced them to act as a unionised collective just like they forced the English-speaking workers to act as a unionised collective.