Immigration

I'm new to leftism. What is Zig Forumss stance on immigration? Should immigration be restricted or do you favour open borders?

pic not related

Attached: simpsons.jpg (1024x682, 87.72K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/P93C-ZW7y4k
historicalmaterialism.org/blog/away-with-damocles-sword-deportation
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

We favor socialist revolution that would eliminate economic migration as a phenomenon.

Immigration only really happens because of Capitalism which always deteriorates because of the falling rate of profit.

Remember when Steven Crowder was told that during his change my mind thing he decided to focus on the kid calling him a shill rather than talking about immigration itself

You'll get a few different answers on this board. I don't want "open borders", I want "no borders". However, in the mean time, I would suppose open borders are fine. I want to eliminate the conditions that make mass migration a thing (such as imperialism) so you wouldn't have, say, a refugee crisis anymore. I'm not particularly perturbed by brown people or something, as I'm not a LARPing white nationalist who hates minorities and wants to commit genocide epic style. I just don't want them to be forced to migrate against their will to even survive.
Also, if you're new to leftism, check out the reading list thread.

Attached: here read a book friend.jpg (800x800, 203.64K)

This, honestly

Attached: pol niggers ethnostate.png (1568x791 102.05 KB, 224.8K)

oh and

Attached: bordhurrrrrs.png (1220x880, 162.53K)

There is a difference between principal and strategy.

In principle, what is the point to argue the border between Ukraine SSR and Belrus SSR?

In strategy, we are currently living in an era, that the infighting of capitalism ruling class is more serve than between ruling class and workers. More global based globally competitive capital and less globally competitive thus turning towards nationalism capital are at war with each other, socialism movemnt is at the stage of regaining strength. I suggest lefies just don't spend too much energy in this question. Mass immigration just proves global imperalism is entering its final stage, we don't have to save it, nor going down with it.

AKSHUALLY there were many border arguments between SSRs in Soviet times, mostly due to economic supply lines. Today's Crimean crisis stems from Khruschev reassigning Crimea from Russian SFSR to Ukrainian SSR. Though that is definitely different from capitalist blood&soil.

Also education provision was different in the SSRs, like pre-war Belrussian SSR had four offical languages (Russian, Belorussian, Yiddish, & Polish) whereas outside the Polish ASSRs (which were dissolved in the 1930s) Ukraine had one. If you were a native yiddish speaker on the border between the Ukie and Belorussian SSRs you might prefer the former.

But what about anti-immigration reforms in capitalism? Should we advocate for them or not?

Honestly? Neither. We are socialists; we seek to overthrow the current order of things. We are not liberal politicos who want to win pointless little 'victories' by going down a checklist of issues and giving a hollow promise about each. If immigration upsets proles, we should harness their discontent and use it towards sabotaging the rule of porky and seizing the means of production. But we shouldn't waste our time and resources on taking sides in minute 'issues'.

Immigration specifically is a double-edged sword for socialists: excessive economic migration is bad for native proles, but so are closed borders and reactionary policies. Why should we take sides at all?

Attached: leftypol on refugee crisis.png (1794x321, 127.37K)

Whatever is convenient at the moment tbh.
People on this board (and marxist in general) think things are straightforward and that the collapse will look exactly as predicted in our fantasies. That's too convenient, truth is that there will be a lot of improvisation.
Rule of thumb for me is that "me getting power and create the condition to change the world>the world".
I think the end really does justify the means and if this means adopting a Blanquism tactic through whatever means I can, it's more than game for meme.
Russians communists (the actual one in the party), Eastern europeans communists and germans understood this that's why the also argue for boarder protection in their programs.

Also I'm tbh just fucking tired of immigration talk, from both sides. It's like I'm voting just to decide where to put these people. I'm also explaining that nato, capitalism, global warming, porky is behind all of this. It's just so fucking tiring. It's not easy to explain this while the news in the background screams a) POOR VICTIMS BLA BLA BLA WE SHOULD LOVE EACH OTHER BLABLA IT'S YOUR FAULT
b) 19 YEAR OLD RAPED, KILLED THEN PUT IN A SUITCASE
I'm really fucking tired of this shit. If immigrants want to help me build socialism I'm fine, if you want something else you'll get thrown in the meat grinder.
I guess the fact that politics is only about this these days make much more sour when it comes to talking about it.

The tactic I'm using is just saying "Yeah, under which system is this happening" I do not express myself if I like it or not, or if they are rapist murderers or not. I do not care I use the propaganda these neocons run of the mill demagogues are spouting against them. I wish more people would do this.
I think also there is a massive difference caused by various material conditions atm on how to act. Americans, Spaniards, Italians, ex yugos will not have the same Idea as a Norwegian on this. And I'm ok with this as long as you are aiming at building something socialist

Attached: tsmsi97kp1011.jpg (689x952, 87.13K)

youtu.be/P93C-ZW7y4k

30:00

b) 19 YEAR OLD RAPED, KILLED THEN PUT IN A SUITCASE

Well, that pretty much sums up how the issue is portrayed in mainstream media. And it's also the basic structure of how Twitter "discussions" on the topic go on.
Btw, if the "raped, killed, put in a suitcase" case is the one I'm thinking about, it's interesting to note that:
1) it was on the news for like two or three weeks after it happened like 24 hours a day;
2) after that, it disappeared from the media radar completely and you don't even see people from certain parties using it as a political football now, despite it being surely a tremendously effective, emotional argument.

Pics not related.

Attached: sammo-hung.jpg (400x400 59.49 KB, 25.49K)

FUCKING THIS

...

Link please

historicalmaterialism.org/blog/away-with-damocles-sword-deportation
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm

Not. Bordercucks are not socialists however much they dress up their asser-lite bullshit.

Oh c'mon depends on the fucking context.
Building socialism>Ideological purity
Unless pic related are asserite

Attached: 1 (1).jpg (1024x768, 277.38K)

Here is the context: borders are the prison walls for the proletariat, and supporting that bourgeois shit is counter-revolutionary.
Woah, you're right. The only way to build socialism is by not practicing Socialism. Brilliant.
Hey remember that time all those degenerated "worker's states" completely fucking failed to build anything even close to socialism?

Attached: anarcho tankies.jpg (810x583, 53.59K)

Ah, ok. You are just a liberal.
Also fuck you pic. Fruit juice drinkers supporting yelstin.
Borders because we can kick your kind out

Non strict immigration is basically consigning any revolution to all resources defending against reactionaries. You either get a successful revolution in the USA China and Europe and close borders until a time immigration is no threat, or you fail.

For the moment? I don't support "open borders," whatever that means. Borders should be heavily controlled to keep things orderly. Otherwise people from third world countries will try to flood the first world, heavily destabilizing society and causing a lot of misery in the process.

What we should do is twofold: (1.) Allow the migration from the third world to the first world in a controlled manner. This means replacing human trafficking with our own official solutions. A steady stream of migrants are let into the west and given a place to stay, a reliable income, and ideally useful labor to perform. For this purpose we set up refugee camps in Africa. Here potential migrants can start the procedure to migrate to the EU. This procedure ought to actually work. It shouldn't be a legal limbo so that we can keep the migrants at bay. We need real solutions for them and we need them fast. (2.) We invest heavily and directly into the development of the third world. Instead of funding their governments to engage in this projects, we do it ourselves. This means sending our people there to build infrastructure, educate the population and help them set up businesses. We should set ourselves the goal of turning these countries into functional social democracies.

For this I would build a large European army. Instead of training our soldiers to fight, we should train them to develop and provide aid to struggling countries. The highly hierarchical structure of a military force should be excellent for this purpose, and the project would set a useful precedent to transform the function of the military from a fighting force to a creating force.

You only wish you stupid pseudo-leftist cunt. Get off Zig Forums and go back to whatever reactionary shithole your dumb ass cralled out of.

You two stupid bastards too.

...

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English.

As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account.

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

NO BORDERS
NO NATIONS
STOP THE DEPORTATIONS

Grow up

Why can’t leftists into economics LMAO
This thread is gold bahahahaahah

this tbh

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm
and communists support the borders and national determination of Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, China, etc.

not to say I am for deportations in the US, I think we should demand full citizenship for all immigrant workers. just that "no borders no nations" comes across chauvinistic and unmarxist. borders and nations, like everything, have class character.

I was thinking about this after reading Stirner.

Being pro immigration is pretty much white supremacy because nearly all immigration is from non white countries to white ones.
Immigrants are spooks because crossing the border implies that white countries are better and non whites should move from their terrible non white countries to the awesome white countries.

That is a very problematic message to send out.

...

Attached: firefox_2018-08-05_17-30-28.png (374x374 4.57 KB, 38.63K)

Brainlet, kys

close borders to capital, don't care what else you do with them. democracy in any sense, however weak, however bourgeois, is entirely incompatible with the free movement of capital.


It's irrelevant. The best stance is to not have a stance.
Unless you're a ⛏️rotskyist, you don't need a stance on whether Barnsley council should give everyone new bins. Once you accept that principle, all else follows.


very very ideological metaphor.

It can happen because of climate. A lot of old people in cold countries emigrate to warmer countries to avoid the joint pain, snow and things like that.

Chauvinism is also ignoring the POV of people different than you. So ignoring the situation of besieged countries that are resisting imperialism, whose borders should be protected.