Can you be a Marxist and be against mass migration?
Can you be a Marxist and be against mass migration?
Wait why did the mods delete the original thread while leaving shittier OP's up? The fuck is up with that?
Next thread will be "can I be a Marxist and hate midgets? they are fucking disgusting"
There will be no migrants after we abolish borders.
Only in as much as you hate it because it happens as a result of neoliberalism and imperialism working in tandem to exploit third world countries and make them unlivable as to create a new pool of cheap and vulnerable labourers to be used in the imperial core to further subsidize the labout aristocrat welfare state.
A migrant is someone who does not work within the borders of the country they are native to.
If we abolish borders, everyone would be a migrant because there would be no borders.
You can't "abolish borders" without first harmonizing disparities in prosperity and wellbeing produced by the enforcement of differing laws they demarcate.
Do that, and borders become meaningless.
Don't do that, and legal norms devolve down to the next strongest entity, transnational corporate business.
You need to dump your immigration infographs here again, m'dude
No we need to displace all of the native population and flood the first world with new consumers
Go throughout history, mass immigration is always used as a tool of the ruling class to enrich themselves. It really is shocking that radlibs will be for mass immigration just because rightwingers are against it. It's akin to not drinking water because hitler drank water
Open borders only benefit the Hibernian scum in power. Thatcher was right we need to remove all potatoes.
/tr.annypol/ just mass banned everyone who doesn't want more third world scabs to be brought in:
You Zig Forumstards could at least attempt to blend in
Still seems like genuine users are getting banned though but it is Zig Forums after all
OP's graph gets the point across okay. Really all I could add most people probably aren't aware of is that among remaining labor unions in burgerlard, there has been a MASSIVE shift from private sector unions that compete directly with immigrants, to public sector unions that are insulated from or even increasingly justified by the needs of immigrants.
>muh chillunz in cages that has been happening with nary a peep for decades until trump
>muh hoomanitarian 'fugees that would be better supported via foreign aid in low-PPP areas culturally, economically, and geographically closer to their homes
>muh deportations, muh wall, muh ICE don't talk about mandatory eVerify proposals!!1!
>muh "undocumented" that amount to only a small fraction of legal immigration, mostly entering on overstaid visas, providing a perfect bi"partisan" distraction from our bloated visa quotas
What an absolute dogshit thread full of moralizing non-arguments
Firstly, archive, but oh my fucking God you're right. I haven't been to Zig Forums out of my own volition in ages how the fuck did things get that bad, there's more bans than ever, more Redditors than ever I mean oh my fucking God, I thought from that you were like over exaggerating but fucking wow, wow that is bad.
I actually mentioned stuff about this shift from private sector unions to public sector a while back. Though, I don't think in this context. This actually does explain the changes to unions experienced in the 90s, along with pressure from an increasingly overbearing Democratic Party.
I unironically support a labor 'aristocracy' of the white working class.
Haven't read the thread yet, but it sounds like hot garbage.
That was, as you might already know, in reference to the Maotist-turd-worldist conception of the masses of 1st-worlders not being proletarian, because of consumer "exploitation" of the 3rd-world proletariat. This is, of course, inane nonsense regurgitating Heritage Foundation talking points, since the harm of neoliberalism has been so severe that inflation corrected prices of 1st-world median labor compensation we're forced to compete against 3rd-worlders for has dropped faster than the prices of "cheap" commodities subsidized by that exploitation of the 3rd-world.
While not quite as ubiquitous among shitlibs who call themselves socialists, many also adhere to the other half of this neolib-derived hogwash, that open borders since the 1970s have increased the living standards of 3rd-worlders at the expense of the 1st-world. Both the statistical authenticity of this supposed humanitarianism, and the credit due neoliberalism for any actual benefit that has occurred, are far from the settled matter shitlibs believe them to be.
This has resulted in a bizarre "consensus" pseudopolitics wherein open borders hurt both the 1st & 3rd worlds, yet both the right and "left" believe the opposite worldwide.
Class divides, and the inherently contradictory nature of any system reliant on them, are what cause capitalism to be self-destructive and unsustainable, even ignoring all its other faults. Only an egalitarian system can weather the burdens of carrying anyone into the future.
Yeah, but usually that's going to lead to reinforcing the state through capitalist structures. If you want an idea of how that turns out look at the socdem parties of yuropoor.
Nice petit idealism. One race human race right, Buttgieg?
Ok honest question, what's worse: nazbol spam or powertripping janitors?
Both are horrible and neither can be gotten rid of so there's no use in complaining, English.
Except capitalist institutions are at their strongest peak with mass migration while unions are dead.
the problem is obviously the ruling class, not the immigrants, you could blame the jews for the holocaust too, but then you lump together the powerful jews with the powerless ones, and your racism reveals itself…
How does that mitigate their culpability? Funny that (white) workers get blamed for benefiting from the exploitation of the Third World, but when its Third Worlders undermining the labour power in Western countries it's all "woah woah back off man, the REAL enemy is porky".
You can't be a marxist and in favour of mass migration.
economic inequality is a major contributing factor in mass migration, demonizing immigrants is a cheap way to scapegoat, turning the middle class against the lower class is the only way the few people in the upper class can hold onto power…
Mass economic migrants aren't really comparable to Jews in the holocaust. A better comparison (sometimes literally the same people) would be child soldiers.
Yes, the warlords who sacked their villages, used their families as leverage to enslave them, and drive them shoot at you are obviously the true enemy, but such lofty notions by themselves can't resolve the more immediate fact that the child soldiers are shooting at you right now on the battlefield, and you don't want to lay down and die.
Similarly, the porkies who've destroyed the communities of migrants, prevented healthy economic growth within their countries, and strangled foreign aid that would provide an alternative to scrounging up remittances for their families in foreign lands, are obviously the root of the problem. But you still have to stop migrants from flooding into your labor market and destroying your economy.
Moreover, the very fact that legal visa quotas are so high, and that border enforcement is so weak, combined with the "free trade" half of the neolib open borders agenda, is precisely what gives porky the incentive to wreak havoc internationally, driving the desperate wretches of the earth into porky's maw. Plug those holes with protectionism, and porky's oxygen supply for imperialist adventurism would be terminated.
Capitalist institutions have been at their strongest peak ever since the collapse of the USSR and blaming the decline unions, the majority of which are class collaborative in nature, on el inmigrante completely ignores the labor policies and propaganda pushed by liberals since the early 20th century and the failings of trade unions since their emergence.
Yeah, and it ends up dividing the proletariat among regional lines to the point where the proles are viewed as having competing class interests. But there's not much else to expect from socdems.
Don't be ridiculous. 1st-world labor unions collapsed in the early 1970s primarily as the result of massive offshoring and immigration, and with them went most regulatory restraints against capital once protected by those unions, accelerated by a depression from the farce that was the "oil" crisis. Even by the time Reagan/Thatcher/etc hit in the 1980s, there was nothing for capitalism to do but mop up stragglers, let alone by the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s when there was absolutely nothing left of organized labor but decades-old bleached bones.
If you really want to pin this on failures of a 2nd-world regime, while numerous 3rd-world countries also played major parts and could have provided ample fuel for the neolib scheme, Chinese rapprochement with the 1st-world in the early 1970s certainly deserves a great the lion's share of blame outside the 1st-world.
Most labor unions had purged all radical elements and had become class collaborationists by the 1960s, resulting in the loss of real power before an alternative to Keynesianism was solidified. Even if trade unions had been in a position to stop capitalism from expanding worldwide they wouldn't have because at this point they were more interested in protecting their industries, including the interests of the bourgeoisie, than they were in fighting the class war as an organ of proletarian power or even showing solidarity outside their own industry. The scapegoating of foreign labor, whether immigrants or offshoring, reinforces the idea that the proletariat doesn't have unified interests and ensures the only crisis capitalism faces is how to manage itself.
Capitalist institutions are more powerful than they were in the 80s to early 90s and don't have a nominal geopolitical enemy like they did with the USSR. This should be fairly undisputed regardless what you think of the USSR.
Debating immigration policy is meaningless without a discussion of power. Organizing working people and granting them collective political power through a socialist party or some other form of dual power is a necessary prerequisite for these kinds of policy debates. This applies to every country, not just the first world. Otherwise you're just arguing about which fraction of the working class you'd prefer to see fucked over.
The argument that the USSR was somehow "holding back" the worst depredations of capital is absurd. Maybe it was true during the Depression, but the Soviets had renounced any strategy of spreading foreign revolution after WWII, and were predominantly concerned with securing their borders and avoiding a nuclear war. The USSR did nothing to stop the rolling back of organized labor and regulations in the West in the 1970s and 80s, and of course it ultimately failed to keep capitalism out of the East as well.
No one today points at "Communist" China as a bastion of anti-neoliberal resistance to capital. The simple fact is that capitalist institutions have been gaining power due to the growth and development of capitalism, which had very little to do with any alleged resistance from "actually existing socialism."
Who's "demonizing" immigrants, when every major news network is running sob stories about Trump killing "unathorized immigrants" on the southern border? Fox News? And even they tow the line on legal immigration ("The problem is just *illegal* immigrants, if we could import 1,000,000 Central American scabs to compete with American workers LEGALLY, hell yeah dude!")
Most of the increased power of capitalist institutions has little to do with the USSR vanishing or the muh browns takin our jobs circa 1970s, it just happens that capitalist institutions grew in power after the collapse of a rival capitalist power or the global south was industrialized, call it coincidental or incidental at best. But these capitalist actors, such as the state or corporations, are indisputably more powerful than they were in the past decades and it seems silly to blame it on the immigrants for killing off yellow unions instead of recognizing that capitalist powers tend to hoard and grow power as part of their function so long as capitalism exists. In a sense they don't really have a peak until capitalism gets abolished, and looking to curtail their growth is ultimately a foold errand that results in the maintenance of capitalism instead of ending it.
The open borders position is already an incredibly unopular one, even among the left. Only neoliberals and r/socialism supports open borders; neither of those represent the left in any way, shape or form.
Also, far from immigration, poor or non-existent trade unions among with job outsorcing is already fucking us over. On such a globalized world, we are not only competing for jobs with immigrants, but also with third world proles.
Once again, the problem is capitalism, not precisely immigration. As my personal opinion, I'm ok with enforcing current immigration laws (at least until capitalism is over), but I'm against deportations, since migrant workers can help unionization.
While no small part of that was due to legislative defeats such as Taft-Hartley, a great deal was down to another Red Scare during the opening stages of the Cold War. Honestly, the greatest positive impact the USSR had was the success of the Russian Revolution itself putting fear into the hearts of porkies, before it became clear just how far the USSR had dеgеnеratеd, turning it into socialism's greatest PR liability.
It's not scapegoating, it isn't even one or other group suffering. Open borders between weak and strong regulatory regimes are and always have been harmful for both sides.
That observation doesn't really contradict either of our scenarios, though it's a simple fact that far greater decay to the material conditions and political strength of the working class occurred in the 70s-80s period than the 90s-00s period.
Look back to history, and you'll see controlling migration and trade have been crucial to building or destroying organized labor. This isn't a chicken and egg problem, the two go hand in hand.
Supporting immigrants≠supporting immigration any more than supporting slaves=supporting slavery. Also
Y'all niggas need solidarity
I'm not the user you're replying to, but doesn't he have a point? The lack of any real workers' movement in developed countries makes immigration control a moot point since regulatory capture of government agencies pretty much dooms any initiatives from opposing the needs of the capitalists.
My position is "no support, no deport."
Obviously this would change if there were a socialist party in charge of the government. But the way things are, I see no reason to cheer for increasing government police power or bureaucracy. I feel the same way about free speech issues on internet platforms. It's better to let fascists spread nonsense than encourage silicon-valley neolibs to openly clamp down on political speech since they will inevitably use it against the anti-capitalist left.
This was also the case in the late 1800s, following the collapse of the Knights of Labor due to a black scare, and again in the 1920s when a red scare caused unions to collapse again, both times well below even the USA's current level of unionization, allowing porky to enact anti-labor policy far more draconian than exists today. In spite of this, rising tides of worker discontent were able to push through crucial legislation and resuscitate organized labor. High demand for and low supply of labor due to protectionism played a crucial role both times.
Right now, I there are trends giving me hope, such as waves of wildcat strikes that started from teachers last year in the heart of the Southeast, spreading to warehouse and retail workers across the country. That could portend not only waves of labor mobilization, but fresh and militant new unions.
First, as I said above, illegal aliens (and deportation as a means of preventing them, compared to targeting illegal employers and eliminating corruption) are a very tiny issue compared to legal immigration, which is in turn a smaller issue than offshoring. Second, this is fundamentally different from censorship.
Trade tariffs and low legal immigrant quotas a crucial means by which both the 1st-world's strong regulatory protections for labor against business are upheld, and by which the 3rd-world is protected against imperialist meddling. The presence and efficient functioning of that bureaucracy, demarcated by the borders within which its legal mandate holds force, is the very thing that prevents transnational business from having totally unfettered power over us.
This was also the case in the late 1800s, following the collapse of the Knights of Labor due to a black scare, and again in the 1920s when a red scare caused later unions to collapse, both times well below even the USA's current level of unionization, allowing porky to enact anti-labor policy far more draconian than exists today. In spite of this, rising tides of worker discontent were able to push through crucial legislation and resuscitate organized labor. High demand for and low supply of labor due to protectionism played a crucial role both times.
Right now, there are trends giving me hope, such as waves of wildcat strikes that started from teachers last year in the heart of the Southeast, spreading to warehouse and retail workers across the country. That could portend not only waves of labor mobilization, but fresh and militant new unions.
First, as I said above, illegal aliens (and deportation as a means of preventing them, compared to targeting illegal employers and eliminating corruption) are a very tiny issue compared to legal immigration, which is in turn a smaller issue than offshoring for now. Second, this is fundamentally different from censorship.
Trade tariffs and low legal immigrant quotas are a crucial means by which both the 1st-world's strong regulatory protections for labor against business are upheld, and by which the 3rd-world is protected against imperialist meddling. The presence and efficient functioning of that bureaucracy, demarcated by the borders within which its legal mandate holds force, is the very thing that prevents transnational business from having totally unfettered power over us.