So is she a Nazbol grifter like the entirety of WokeTwitterleft is currently claiming, including Chapo boys?
So is she a Nazbol grifter like the entirety of WokeTwitterleft is currently claiming, including Chapo boys?
delete this stupid thread. now.
Nagle isn't Alt-right. She's a pretty famous leftist personality that rose to fame for largely bringing the ideas of Mark Fisher back to prominence and repeatedly dunking on the Idpol-left from a Materialist, Class based position.
Is there any data that immigration in fact does lower the average income? Because capitalism does actually need immigration to keep the profit rate up. I don't think the left should appeal to feels > reals when it comes to this issue, just because it's popular.
And also, what the fuck is the "open border" meme. There are no "open borders", this is alt-right jargon with no base in reality. Nagle is an idiot.
What's a grifter?
A mainstream position crucial to the viability of labor unions is hardly "Nazbol"
Back to brainlet school with you
Cry harder, radlibs.
For unskilled, people with no higher education etc people, yes, they do experience wage depression.
It though averages out overall, because professionals highly benefit from more loose borders.
A con artist
open borders are good
pseudo-intellectual " " "" " "" journalists " "" " " are shit
Open Borders are a good idea in a post-capitalist system.
In Neoliberalism where a fucking public school or road can't be built without providing a 600 page business case for profitability and then be put out to tender for a year to pay for a contractor that happens to have links to the Neolib party, only for the school not to be build and a 500 million dollars and 10 years later does anybody actually notice. No, open borders is not a good idea. Modern cities can barely fucking struggle with growth at the moment from people fleeing rural areas into Urban, how in living fuck are they supposed to also cope what would likely be millions of migrants on an annual basis?
Do you know how much money liberal government spend to keep immigrants out? There is no "open borders", there is the Schengen Zone, which has been there since decades now.
I am not for these "free trade agreements". That's a completely different issue. Immigration is free movement of labour, free trade is free movement of capital. I know that immigration damages the countries that experience emigration, like brain drain and labour drain (which is somewhat alleviated through remmitences sent back home).
You can't tell me that every border policy left of the literal alt-right are "open borders", especially as an anarchist.
just because she's leftist and does some piece on the alt-right isn't some correlation she's some "nazbol prick" you fail to differentiate between bougie leftist opportunists and actual poorfags like myself that see merit in Niekisch's writings.
now that's a shitposting flag
The thing flowing across open borders isn't truly capital or labor, it's deregulation itself.
The thing that borders delineate isn't countries, nations, or states, but laws. So long as capitalism persists anywhere, especially in the rawest and most brutal form in today's 3rd world, any regulatory reform can only provide benefits if it has an utter monopoly against inferior laws elsewhere. In economic terms, that means sealing the borders against inferior laws, the more corrupt legal systems that produce them, and the more capitalistically pliable economies and populations that subsist under those.
Perverse incentives of open borders that force poor migrants to the bottom of rich economies, exportable jobs to foreign sweatshops, and reward meddling such as military adventurism, are the primary force that cripples organization in the 3rd-world, and tears away at the foundations of the 1st-world.
Open borders under capitalism are a right-wing policy, period.
Open borders under socialism aren't a product of eliminating borders, but of harmonizing regulation upward. Borders between economically and legally comparable polities don't have to be eliminated, because they are de-facto meaningless.
Nagle is a socdem whose opinions would put her somewhere near Noske if we're graphing by historical figures, yall can figure out where that puts her in our current situation. The fact she quoted Marx from a piece where he decried the English working class for being unable to show solidarity with Irish workers to support an anti-immigrant stance is hilarious and shows how much credibility we should give her.
No, It's competition between workers that lowers wages, to believe that it is immigration would require that 1)immigrants are inherently scabs, 2)no "native" workers are capable of being scabs, and 3)that class solidarity between workers is impossible if they come from different places. These beliefs are contrary to the socialist movement back to the days Marx and Bakunin actually got along, and share far more with their liberal or reactionary opponents than they do with any socialists.
A figment of the aut-right's imagination. Open borders do not exist in capitalism, what does exist is capital being unrestricted by borders due to the globalization of the economy due to technology and politics, borders are still closed to people for the most part.
The theory is effectively that migrants from developing countries "tolerate" much lower wages than citizen workers and take the positions of low-skilled employment which could otherwise go to the supposedly more deserving citizen workers. I'm sure you understand why this theory is appealing to many
DE SASSENACH KNOW!
That too, but more generally, that higher labor supply of any sort undercuts the bargaining position of labor as a whole.
That's an interesting way to say "less obedient"
Nigga do you not know what a trend is? What is with these absolutes? Any increase in the pool of labor is going to lower the price of labor overall.
I'm well aware of the argument, the issues with the argument is that they ignore the economic situation of poor citizens (1 in 7 burgers are in the bottom 10% globally) and insinuate that class solidarity is impossible between different income level workers. This reasoning not only breaks up the proletariat on an international basis, but on an intranational basis. Following this logic results in any organization being concerned only with workers in particular industries in particular regions within a country as opposed to an organization that includes all proles.
I side with Marx instead of Lassalle on wages. libcom.org
The point is to raise the floor for worker income. If people under that floor are imported in great numbers, that isn't going to work.
t. bootlicking succdem. Quit fighting for minimum wage reform and fire all bosses.
You guys are missing the plain fact that immigrants do not represent an increase in the available labor pool, because they are not coming from a place outside of the system. National economies are nothing but abstractions–math games within a global capitalism. Human migration is a realignment within the same system. Any effectual decrease in the cost of labor in one place is completely offset by an increase in the cost of labor in another. Thus systemically, there is ultimately no difference whether they work or starve in Bangledesh or work or starve in Norway.
Where are you going to get the disciplined mass of organized labor for that, without the steady flow of frequent, popular, meaningful, practical victories for the working class won by reformism?
There is no unified system, because there are different laws in effect, producing material differentiation. The only question is whether a future unified system is the product of a race to the bottom, or a climb to the top.
Kill All Normies was shit. Angela Nagle is an intellectually bankrupt revisionist more interested in punching left for profit than scholarship, just like her publisher Zero Books.
There is no coherent anti-internationalist left position.
But let us consider that if the most active and driven section of the working class in Country A chooses to migrate to Country B, they are in effect depressing organizational capacity in both countries due to the fact that the labor pool increases in Country A while migration acts as a safety valve in Country B.
oops, i meant they increase the labor supply in Country B and act as a safety valve in Country A.
Perhaps by hablaing the espanol. Perhaps by turning to domestic and student labor. Perhaps by, you know, ditching the NLRB-pacification movement and promoting alternative institutions to fire your fucking boss.
A good comment from Twitter on this.
(The time I posted anything from C.V. Vitalo- Hadad someone said I was her, and shilling my own work.
I posted a photo of the current local London paper as proof that that wasn't the case but I can't be bothered to it again. As the top of the screen grab of my mobile phone shows, it's 3°Centigrade outside. I can't be bothered to go traipsing to the tube station for the Evening Standard.)
Nagles article mentions low waged low skill natives. I am one myself. It seems obvious to me my low wages aren't the fault of immigrants: They don't set the pay rates.
Actually billionares have long been pushing for open borders, the reason we don't have it as a policy is that the working class would literally march into the halls of power and slaughter everyone if it was truly proposed as a policy. Most right wing politicians in reality, actually support Open Borders (I live in a town that was designed to house politicians), but it is due to mass resistance of the working class and the labour movement they they don't.
No, turning worker against worker with the fiction of nation is one of the oldest tricks in the porky book.
If there were no borders, there would be no point at all in offshoring because wages would reach equilibrium. There would be no ability to quell an international proletarian revolution. Laws that protect the rich become unenforceable as workers can freely associate across national boundaries to organize in and protect their interests. Workers can stop work at airports and train stations, becoming the gatekeepers themselves and forcing the hand of capital. Borders protect national interests, and national interests are bourgeois interest. Peurile "well the Berlin Wall is leftist so it we can just ignore the historical and material conditions and say that Trumpism is actually leftism" is pure sophistry.
The international character of the proletariat cannot capitulate to bourgeois nationalism. Nation does not matter. I care more for the Honduran worker than the bourgeois American pig. Class solidarity cannot be broken by fictitious national boundaries. If the union tells me that I should care about America more than I care about the worker, then fuck the union.
Either way, there is actually no real left case for open borders. As people have already pointed out in this thread what solutions does the left have to
There is no answer to these questions, because "Open Borders" is nothing but a moralistic brainfart that somehow appeared after Abolish Ice. Abolish Ice, is a concrete movement, even Succdems support it, but Open Borders isn't. Open borders is exactly the idea of the cart before the horse, it's an idea that makes sense within SOCIALISM, it doesn't make sense in a system where the working class ultimately doesn't have the final say on policy or power. We all know how open borders would play out, just look at things like the TPP, it would be negotiated in secret, by corporations and then rushed through the halls of power.
Labor unions are feckless fossils that haven't been relevant in a long time
If mass immigration destabilizes the state, then that is an argument FOR not AGAINST open borders.
The crux of the matter here is that Nagle has some revisionist liberal reformism confused with leftism, and can't seem to imagine at all a world where leftists might want to dismantle the bourgeois state entirely rather than just vote exactly how the teamsters tell them to once every 4 years as the extent of their political involvement.
Open borders is the single most unrealistic policy anyone supports today. It will be at least a century, likely two, before the conditions that make it both feasible and beneficial to the working class exist.
As long as Capital is free to move as it wishes but the worker is constrained to the geographical area they were born in, Capital will have an upper hand and continue its plundering of human lives. There can be no effective organizing against Capital as long as the borders are shut.
That's why free flow of capital should be restricted for time being. I'm also not saying to shut down borders, I'm just saying it would be unwise to completely eliminate border and immigration control.
But it wouldn't be?
Except it would, even ignoring the economic arguments for or against it, free movement would result in even more mass migrations from third world countries that would drive first worlders closer to ethno-nationalist ideology, which would, in turn, result in lynch mobs on a mass scale targeting minority immigrants. There would be a legitimate risk of genocides being perpetrated without any state action being necessary.
So you're saying we should let the white nationalists have their way with the borders otherwise we won't be respectable anymore and there will be an impending Turner Diaries type situation?
If you start trying to purge migrants we can just give them guns and purge you nationalists instead.
No, white nationalists want next to no immigration, except maybe from other predominantly white countries. I'm not a nationalist, I'm just a realist who knows that you have to play long games on some issues, and this is one of those issues.
Even if you strongly support open borders you should at least have the sense to know there are others issues that warrant greater prioritization.
The economic arguments are FOR it. Closed borders reinforce right-wing thought, open borders erode them. Stop believing Zig Forums's lies.
If you keep calling everyone who doesn't want open borders a white nationalist you will continue to drive people away from the left and into the arms of the real nationalists, you fucking idiot.
The argument against open borders is that
1) it makes it more difficult to organize
2) the glut in the labor market makes it harder to go on strike or demand higher wages
3) it distracts people by making them want to blame immigrants instead of the system
4) it functions as a safety valve for countries with high population growth but few real opportunities.
You made the argument about giving nationalists an excuse to commit genocide, as if immigration justified that. We can and should just kill those people instead.
1. No it doesn't. It makes it easier.
2. Wage labor should be ended. More workers makes this easier, not harder.
3. If they blame immigrants, they are counterrevolutionaries and should be reeducated or purged. Full stop.
4. I don't care about the nation-state framework. That should be ended.
imagine my cock
Ah yes, "i don't have to think any of my policy proposals through because if everything goes to shit, that's actually what i wanted to happen"
Wanting to "dismantle the bourgeois state entirely" is just the ideological catchphrase you use so that you don't have to think anything through and so that you can comfortably be the most radical person in the room at all times. That's why you don't feel the need to think of any solutions to any of the political difficulties that might arise from trying to pursue a policy of open borders. That kinda shit's just for boring socdems and liberals to deal with, right? Your job is to go for the most radical shit you can think of and then everything will just sorta work it's way out because socialism and shiet.
There are literally no problems with immigration.
If you don't like immigrant workers, that's your problem. It isn't mine. I owe you nothing simply because we share a government. With no knowledge of you or a random immigrant worker, I prefer neither of you over the other. With what I know of you given your posts, I prefer the immigrant worker. You want to use the vehicle of the current state at all costs, against other workers if they force you to question your fealty to nation. That makes you my enemy. It isn't about radicalism. It's about solidarity. Mine is with the worker. Yours is with the nation. Our differences are irreconcilable, and we aren't on the same side regardless of whatever else you believe.
No Lassalle, it isn't going to work if there is competition between workers rather than solidarity. Assuming immigrants willing to work for substantially lower pay were able to get here, the issue is not that they are poor but rather that employers have weapons to intimidate such "imports" into accepting lower pay through threats of deportation. Ironically "open borders" policies would reduce this by removing the threat of deportation and allowing immigrant workers to organize without such fear, thus limiting obstacles to organizing to the spooks of workers, which is regrettably worldwide. Unfortunately since billionaires don't support such policies as Nagle claims that but rather revokeable visas and similar, any anti-immigration laws passed will ultimately harm the workers' ability to organize while capital will still be able to exploit labor globally. As such anti-immigration advocates are ultimately reformists who work to retain capital because they want to secure a superior position within capitalism instead of abolish it. It's worker's of the world unite for a reason, and it seems many so called socialists have rejected class unity in favor of national unity. Roses get the bullet too.
Fucking immingrants should fix their fucking country instead of come and shit on mine.
Honestly open borders shit is just virtue signalling among the left. It's one of those ideas that is so unrealistic and unfeasible, that leftists have no problems proclaiming they're 100% for it because they will never, ever have to actually think about the logistical problems for it, because it will never, ever happen under Capitalism. Ever.
There is no real need for discussion of it, because it's not happening and any attempt to push it into the public sphere would result in severe pushback. Who are workers going to follow, trade unions who actually have material affect on their lives? or a bunch of snotty nosed college kids from some Socialist org that do book readings?
Open borders is just pure leftist performism to show how radical you are, it's like street fighting or other useless dumb shit that Socialists so often get embroiled in in the "radical Olympics"
Is this 1950?
What do you expect, it's the fucking internet, let's just stop the pretensions that this shit is to be taken seriously and start talking about how many millions of white Americans we'd like to drag up against the wall and shoot.
You don't actually work do you ?
I'll just let you in on a little secret, buckaroo. Trade unions, even in countries where they appear strong, no longer push for the betterment of the working class. Today they are merely bourgie stooges, often headed by actual bourgies themselves, whose entire purpose is to placate workers if they get too pissed and manipulate so no union may ever be turned actual pro-proletarian again as they once were.
If you don't support open borders, you are literally succdem in disguise who secretly loves his spook concept of nation than the working class of humanity
They do, and we do ave them. Look at the EU traval zone.
That should be the leftcom slogan.
Hell, all borders are open to capital.
No state can restrict the flow of capital without completely fucking global capitalism, and it will take a proper revolution to do that. Now that capitalism is global, it is physically incapable of going back.
Bullshit. Capital moves freely regardless of borders, and it does so across the entire planet. Petty laws passed by states that are all beholden to the laws of capital are insubstantial and inconsequential. There is one global capitalism.
Country A and Country B are nothing more than abstractions within the same system.
Everyone here supports open borders, but unlike you, some of us are smart enough to know the conditions for it don't exist, so instead of advocating for open borders we should be advocating for policy that will bring about the material conditions that allow for it. It's called pragmatism you childish idealist and anyone who doesn't practice it will never achieve anything for their ideology.
that was another user… which should be obvious considering they posted under a Deleon flag.
Proof? Evidence? Facts?
…this does not follow.
nice fantasy, Pol Pot. we won't have the capacity to do anything of the sort unless we can get better organized.
"let's end wage-labor, nation-states, citizenship, and kill anyone who doesn't like it."
wow great plan. what sane person could ever disagree with you.
not only is it unfeasible but it's widely unpopular. working people do not want mass migration. they do benefit from mass migration, either. the people who benefit are capitalists who can now expand their production of surplus by having access to a growing supply of labor-power.
capital does not "move freely regardless of borders." there are tremendous costs involving in moving capital from one country to another, and there are often vast legal complications. i have actually talked with business lawyers about this and i was told that in order to open a legal business (as a foreigner) i'd have to first acquire residency, comply with all legal requirements to register and legitimize a business, and then probably wait for 2 years before the process could even become finalized. in short, it was fucking impossible.
class is an abstraction, too.
ib4 sageanon threatens to purge and/or kill you.
Something being an abstraction doesn't mean it's not "real" or doesn't have a material impact on the world. You understand that right? Class is an abstraction too.
Open borders are actually the economic interest of the majority of the proletariat, all of those who can achieve a better socioeconomic position by moving around, which is the overwhelming majority. Just because the labour aristocracy and national bourgeois in your country feels threatened by workers from other countries and flood the media with their anti-immigration propaganda does not mean that it is the consensus.
this is a pretty bad take (or at least misleading), considering illegals already affect the labour market even if they aren't protected by its legal statutes. the removal of the potential for extra exploitation of illegals by giving them the same rights is actually good for the workers, since a super-exploited group like illegals push the value of labour down even more due to the threat of deportation.
but overall the article is excellent. I might use this as my first proper shot in the great battle against liberals and utopian idealists in my org.
what is this horseshit
immigrants are generally in a worse position on the labour market, therefore they accept lower wages, not to mention their expectations are lower if they come from a destitute land to a wealthy one. they see compliance to boss bullshit in their interest as opposed to going back to wherever they came from, where the threats of violent death or starvation are real.
this happens with the current level of globalisation anyway, slowly but surely. [pic related]. this is however terrible for the first-world workers, the 'labour aristocrats', and if we are communists and materialists we should be for labour against capital, wherever such conflict arises and by politically fighting for the material good and benefit of the worker.
why isn't there a strong intra-EU or Schengen-zone labour union then? there should be
idealist utopians OUT
Jesus fuck man. Do you really buy such diarrhea ? Go suck Mao's embalmed dick already you tryhard fucker
My god, some idiots here have really been drinking the liberal cool aid.
Please kill yourself. "Dismantle the bourgeois state entirely", what a fucking joke. You might as well just shit on the street and get arrested to dismantle the bourgeois state, because I can guarantee you the backlash will be a far-right government. I can't believe how many actual punks post here.
The national bourgeoisie in the West loves migration, only a minority, such as the oil and coal industry, oppose it. It is the national bourgeoisie in the Third World that opposes it, because it drains their labour force and severely hinders development there. Labour drain is a form of imperialism. Of course I don't blame migrants doing what is best for them personally, but you must be some grade A moron to not see this problem. The "anti-immigration propaganda" is bullshit, but I am not coming at this from a muh nation muh laws angle (strawman that has been repeated ITT over and over).
And I am not even mentioning the realpolitik of such a project, which will enable the far-right.
Infantile horseshit. The nation-state remains the primary form of human organization on a large scale for now. It is unlikely that a revolution would be supranational, because langauge, culture, economic life and psychological make-up are different in every country. It literally doesn't matter if it's a social construct or if you consider it a "spook" or whatever. It's also a social construct that wear clothes, are you gonna stop doing that in summer now? At least be consequential with your "fuck you mom and dad" attitude.
Mao didn't come up with that theory.
does that phrase trigger you? are you literally shaking?
please actually read the post: in the very next sentence after that phrase I advocate for the left to support the 'labour aristocracy', since they are real, actual workers with actual real needs opposed to those of capital.
Yeah I'm drunk man, pumping myself up for self-termination. I'm not even reading
ya me too, and in hindsight I should have been clearer
do what you must, but think about it for a moment: can the nothingness of death really ever be better than literally anything?
My life has been too much pain. There is no end to it and all I do is struggle through life. I don't want to hurt anyone and neither do I wish ill towards all other living beings. I only ever wanted the best for others but I am in this certain position and the best thing I can do is end my own life. I've sought help but all they can do is drug me and I've been a neutered zombie for too many years on their pharmaceutical sorcery.
All I ever wanted to do is do good and I can't even find my way into actual leftist movements that actually act and not be diverted by idpol garbage. The biggest threat facing our planet is climate change yet even this, they use as virtue signaling armchair politic shit. There is no end to it so the best thing I can do is end my own life. These are my last days until my birthday and so I'm spending them with the only real friends I ever knew, random anonymous peoples, friends I'll never meet. The Internet is the only home I've ever known
Agreed. But all workers.
I've got a friend in the cab industry in London. He said when Uber arrived on the scene, his hourly income went down from £30 on average to £20 (before costs.) (Most Uber drivers are immigrants, most cabbies are natives.)
How did the cab driver unions respond? by attacking Uber drivers, mounting publicity campaigns saying passengers are at risk from sexual assault from Uber drivers. They hired trucks with billboards on the sides to drive around London displaying questionable sexual assault statistics.
They did a similar thing when rickshaws started appearing in the West End. They paid for posters up of an evilly grinning dark skinned mediterranean looking guy piloting a rickshaw anf a claim that they were uninsured and unsafe.
And way before that, when minicabs were first licensed as "private hire vehicles," they ran an anti-rapist campaign about that, too. (Now the Cab Unions see the private hire industry as the lesser evil compared to Uber and run joint campaigns with them.)
I've sometimes made the point to cabbies they can only be undercut if someone is being paid less than them. They'd be better off joining a union like the IWW which campaigns for all workers.
Tun Sie was Sie woll.
but if you are willing to end it all, why not live like you are already dead? no inhibitions, no regrets? if you have to force yourself through pain to do something beneficial, then you can ignore the pain - after all, what is pain if you are already willing to accept death, the eternal non-feeling and existence?
if nothing else then why not take a politically prominent porky with you? someone who explicitly wields their capital for political power? think Mercer, Murdoch, Soros. or better still, a serial tax-avoider. make them factor in personal safety when calculating the cost-benefit of tax fraud.
quite, and this is one of the trickier questions for the trade union movement. But I believe we should never protect jobs for jobs' sake like social democrats, we are after all for the elimination of wage labour. there is no purpose to defending obsolete jobs like that of the typists'. on the other hand, the cab drivers are real people and are being undercut by services like uber. the correct solution here would be to attack Uber's model from a political-legal angle: uber is only profitable because it circumvents labour laws by treating employees like outsourced labour. beyond that the great appeal of Uber is that you don't have to deal with fraudulent cab drivers since money changes hands only through a third party - and this I understand very well, dealing with taxi drivers in certain countries is the worst. this is a good development, and taxi companies should adapt to the times and the new technological paradigm, as has already happened in some places.
I like Soros. I feel that deep down he's an accelerationist who acknowledges that we truly need to bring down civilization and create a new world. I would like to do that but the country in which I'm living isn't home to really any of these types of people and gun laws are such that they're basically illegal. I've been researching certain things but I'm unsure. It's hard to describe the pain because it feels overbearing like everything is so much more of an effort, even the most basic things. I just wish I knew people, was connected to some group
(and yes, I'm behind a VPN and Tor so I don't give a shit what I'm saying about these criminals of humankind)
that's fine but it isn't about the person but what they and the act represent
highly unlikely, and what's stopping you from going abroad? it's not like you'll need to repay the loan or save for the rent
This isn't what I'm saying. When you've been abused as a child PTSD lasts forever. It never ends and destroys everything in your life. I don't want to hurt anyone. I really don't want to continue any violence against anyone. This is the most difficult thing because violence seems reasonable. I can't cause harm. I can only help by not causing trouble to anyone and removing my ability to contribute to CO2, even if it is so very little
That doesn't imply we should act as if we aren't working to end it.
Piecemeal reforms are great and all, but they aren't and never were the goal. Pretending that they are is pure goalpost moving.
Beyond that, immigration is good. Preventing immigration really only means preventing the movement of workers. How does making the borders of the nation state more secure in any way help abolish said state? How does it help me organize with international workers? It does neither. It's an attempt to thwart me. It's a prison wall on a larger scale, designed to perpetuate the current system of wage slavery and illusory choice.
They spend that money because open borders are not politically viable, at least not yet. Thus, liberal """democracies""" (which are still tied in some manner to public opnion) can't really pursue true open borders as they would lose popular support.
Marx vs Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages. libcom.org
Expectations fit the conditions they are in, if they are able to enjoy the same privlidges as native workers(no threat of deportation and legally able to get housing) then as proletarians they are able to work with their class for higher demands. Thus we return to Marx's assertion that competition between laborers is the determinant of wages instead of labor supply as liberal economists suggest with their autism charts.
This exists almost entirely because of the current situation of borders and immigration, ie porous with carceral bureaucracy. Open borders policies would actually be counter to this, in that employers couldn't threaten immigrants with deportation if they didn't accept lower wages than native workers. Given the reality of how immigration and employment actually work, anti-immigration policies are going to reinforce immigrant position as a lower wage workforce rather than remove it, because they already exist within countries on a large scale and employers will risk the slap on the wrist if they get caught hiring. Nagle's suggestions are at best a misguided call for ineffective reformism inline with that of yellow unions who have been counter-revolutionary for decades.
That was you being unable to move, not capital. The investment of capital does not equate to hurrdurrstartuhbizness.
Class is a material relationship between an individual and the means of production. There is nothing material about a nation-state. Did you just get here from /liberty/?
Comfortable white leftist like nagle get the gulag
Why would anyone do that?
What has Stalin written?
He's probably refering to Marxism and the National Question, written by Stalin in 1913.
Are you living in an alternate reality?
I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden the neoliberal establishment pushed for immigration and tolerance and openness and multiculturalism hard. Non-SD politicians only recently started changing their positions a bit after it became impossible to ignore what a fucking disaster it's been.
no, as an individual I faced no obstacles entering and leaving the country at will. the problem was being unable to legally move money, invest, or accumulate capital. most countries have strict laws regarding foreign ownership.
That's true you fucking moron but neither could I invest in a company, since non-residents cannot buy shares.
Class is an abstraction, a concept. A "relationship" is abstract, the individuals involved are concrete.
Yeah, except the state apparatus, military, police…etc.
No, I've been here since the beginning unfortunately.
calling someone white is not an argument.
Apparently some of you are since you don't understand that the bourgeoisie benefit from having access to a large reserve of labor-power.
Posts like this, and the autistic screeching by anarchists in support of full-blow open borders, makes me think we’ve actually been flooded by redditors.
The EU single market =/= the world. Of course if you are from a western country in general, you may very well be able to ENTER other countries quite freely, at least for some months at a time, but you cannot work in them without a working visa which are often difficult to get unless you have legal qualifications and experience in certain fields. Effectively, the most you can do is rent for short periods and wander around until your tourist visa/legal limit runs out then you have to leave and if you don't leave or work illegally you may be prohibited from entering for some years.
Open borders is perhaps the biggest load of shit that bootlickers have ever conceived
Hi Zig Forums
Abolish ICE is the correct line
Lynch the nationalists that want to build the wall and deport workers
That's a litmus test that suggests that there is NOT an invasion of Reddit "anarchists," actually.
I'm talking about your completely absurd, absolutist takes. for someone who claims to side with Marx you sure don't value dialectics or indeed materialism that high
obviously the extension of labour supply doesn't magically push down wages but it by and large means the intensification of competition between workers, and allows for more discriminatory hiring practices, such as discriminating on 'foreigners' or those who don't speak the local language natively often implicitly or in secret. this is why legal equality is nowhere close to enough to 'equalise' the foreign-born and local worker in terms of rights and position on the labour market. as that one syndanon likes to say, it's a problem of implicit discrimination that can't be solved without eliminating Bourgeois Right and dictatorship over property.
nonsense. continual liberal immigration policy just means that the settled-in, labour-market-integrated immgrants are going to be undercut by the new arrivals. see: the Polish plumber in Luton voting for Brexit though what impact Brexit will really have is a whole 'nother question.
and politically changing this is exactly what Nagle talks about
Read Settlers, crackers.
America is a disease.