I’m new to left wing politics but from studying and cleansing my blackened soul, it makes a lot more sense than the vitriol racist hatred non sense on the far right which I was a former member of. But the one thing that ive realised from all of my reading is that mass immigration and open borders is inherently anti worker. How do you guys think about this issue? Any good arguments for or against it that can enlighten me on the topic?
I’m new to left wing politics but from studying and cleansing my blackened soul...
Noah Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
americanaffairsjournal.org
americanaffairsjournal.org
twitter.com
Jayden Diaz
immigration is just lazy outsourcing.
it only undermines the working class insofar as it is illegal. legal migration involves educating the subject on English so unionization is facilitated as well as entitling them to the worker's rights you receive as an American citizen.
also under Communism there will be almost no migration at all. you won't have the income inequality capitalism promotes and thus people aren't going to leave their neighborhoods and communities because they'll be able to make a decent living right in their home towns.
Dominic Morales
turd positionist bullshit. It's simple, mate: workers of all nations, unite! Socialism is necessarily internationalist. This means *no nation states* at all. Open borders doesn't mean you just keep the bourgeois state and let anyone waltz into your "country." And you have to give up all your spooks about muh nation, muh pipo, muh imaginary lines on the ground
Gavin Wright
Depends. You have to figure out the motives of those who rule the country (the capitalists). Sometimes it's because they want cheap labour. Sometimes it's because they want to prop up the housing market. Sometimes it's because they figure they can get more votes for a certain political party. Sometimes it's because they figure they can stir up identity politics to divide and distract workers from uniting. There can be a whole host of reasons.
Christian Myers
that's not internationalism
Benjamin Foster
user thinks the bourgeois nation state will still operate under communism
Ian Morgan
Under capitalism, you can't have open borders unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) because it increases the pool of labor for the capitalist and subsequently lowers wages.
Under socialism, you can either have open borders or not. It's up to the citizens to decide. Opening the borders doesn't reduce "wages" because the labor market has been abolished. Workers are always paid 1 labor token for each hour worked, with perhaps some slight variation for empirically-verifiably more efficient workers. The value of any good is calculated from the average amount of labor that goes into it.
Brandon Lee
man this sounds like some hyper idealistic nonsense. again, im new to this but… labour tokens? wtf
Eli Allen
Nice healthy mix of racism and nationalism wrapped in leftist rhetoric. Another pollack who's "new to leftism".
David Gomez
it's possible, but you need to use a complex set of economic mathematical algorithms.
all described in W. Paul Cockshott's "Towards a New Socialism".
Isaac Ortiz
Labor tokens are used because they have some useful properties:
- they are a closer representation of value than money (see this video: youtube.com
- they are non-transferable: labor tokens are deleted once they are spent, preventing any and all capitalist schemes where money is made from money (rent, interest, debt)
See these two videos in order:
1. youtube.com
2. youtube.com
Sebastian Smith
Cockshott's proposed planning algorithms are really not that complex at all, my dude. They're just computationally expensive for an economy on a national scale, though not prohibitively so.
Joseph Barnes
thanks
Kevin Rivera
Labour voucher is probably the more well known term. The point is to move to a non-transferable form of payment for work to put an end to currency circulation and investment.
I regards to immigration, we had a thread about it already . You'll probably find a hundred different arguments for open borders from a left-wing perspective, but Nagle makes a compelling one for not having them (at least in capitalism) from a left wing perspective americanaffairsjournal.org
Colton Sanders
It should be up to socioeconomic analysis from a physicalist lens, not vague metaphysics. Does it meet the carrying capacity? Is there a sufficient screening process for immigration candidates? Will there be any sociological harm inflicted on the population depending on what the immigration rates and the immigrants' origins are? Are they of economic benefit (scientists, doctors, engineers) or should the population stabilise? These are factors that must considered in such decisions.
Angel Robinson
I would say it stops capitalist investment (the capitalist ultimately getting out more from the asset than he initially put in), but not investment in general. One could imagine a socialist society with a "state investment budget" taken out of taxation awarded to firms to help them expand, or taken out of voluntary taxation (think Kickstarter).
Jaxon Edwards
Did you respond to the wrong post?
Alexander Johnson
nativist, classist, garbage post. get off of this board
Mason Nelson
Immigration sucks, way more for the immigrants. Some disasters are inevitable but the migrations of today are caused by useless wars and economic reason. If Mexico was a better place to live Mexicans wouldn't leave.
The answer is to stop regime change attempts for the stupid chess game rich people play, and improving the living situation of everywhere in the world instead of this race to the bottom of living standards were currently pursuing.
Levi Young
Not the person your replying to, but you understand the USSR did things similar what he's saying, right? People were screened and moved around depending on where they were needed and by what the economy of the republic in question required.
Oliver Wright
A few reasons leftists tend to not take hard anti-immigration stances:
- The core leftist demand is the end of capitalism, creating a system where no amount of immigration would be anti-worker. A society built on "to each according to his need" does not involve competition for scarce jobs. If immigration was controlled in such a society (unlikely, IMO, nation states would probably stop existing anyway) it would more likely be for transient reasons related to allocation of resources.
- Those leftists interested in bettering conditions under capitalism might in some cases conclude that limiting migration would thwart efforts to exploit people willing to work for less. But in the west, there are already a lot of immigrants living there, and if you want to have a broad working class coalition working toward other goals then taking any positions perceived as anti-immigrant is a bad idea.
- Besides political concerns, being anti-immigration might be counterproductive to your other goals. Immigration police are often used to thwart unionization efforts, both through arrest of undocumented workers and harassment of those who do have the proper permits. Weakening or abolishing the militaristic enforcement agencies seems like a good goal, but it's hard to reconcile with strict immigration rules.
Cameron King
Also, if your a socialist country bordering capitalist ones, you simply can't have open borders period for obvious reasons (security, brain drain, etc.).
Fixed spoiler, sounded like I was saying the opposite.
Henry Murphy
The way I see it, immigration probably does undercut domestic workers' wages, but these wage differentials between workers in and from different parts of the world is also caused in part by borders, right? It's very difficult to square radical left-wing politics with anti-immigration policies because (a) borders and (b) wage effects from immigration are interlinked phenomena.
I live in Texas for example. Some of the harshest anti-immigrant politicians on the right here have been tied up with companies that actually facilitate migrant labor – particularly for the construction industry because migrant labor keeps property developers' labor costs down. The wealthy developers who are behind these sprawling suburban neighborhoods and office buildings want the cheap labor but they also want to keep it cheap: therefore they support harsh anti-immigration policies at the same time and contribute to campaigns (or run for office themselves). Totally open or closed borders in either direction is not in their interest: they prefer something in between.
David Harris
Take it here
Kevin Ortiz
Mass immigration under capitalism is a very complex issue. As stated by other anons, it often leads to many problems, I will add that one of them is an increase in right wing popularity. Advocating for open borders is political suicide as it won't be popular and is actually harmful to the citizens. We, as communists must target the source of the problem and that is imperialism. The economic imbalance of nations along with the constant wars are the only reason mass immigration happens in the first place. We must dispel the systemic racist and xenophobic talking points while showing the root of the problem.
Camden Scott
>>>Zig Forums
