So what does the radical left think of the migration crisis happening in Yurop? Do you think it’s a good thing...

So what does the radical left think of the migration crisis happening in Yurop? Do you think it’s a good thing, do you not care, do you think it’s a bad thing? What exactly is your honest opinion on this?

Attached: C49B4A0A-4B24-4726-B959-C5D9D8351956.jpeg (542x676, 118.41K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Mass immigration is a natural result of capitalist globalist policies and cheap labor importation on large scales in order for local businesses to compete. We don't like it one bit, not only because local workers are being forced to compete with more and more people to suck boss's dick, but also because those immigrants are being exploited even worse than local workers are most times.

It is blown completely out of proportion. Just you wait 10-20 years when climate change really kicks in. Then we can talk about a "migration crisis".

Interesting, this is exactly an answer that Zig Forums would least expect from someone such as yourself.

My dad says global warming isn’t real so it must be fake

Also, funds that should be used to support internally displaced migrants in MENA are being siphoned away to push cheap labor into the (still far more expensive to live in) sub-basement of the European labor market. Every refugee resettled in Europe is literally worth the lives of a dozen more elsewhere:

This. The 3rd-world is going to take it raw and hard, while tundra real estate will boom.

Attached: Projected_impact_of_climate_change_on_agricultural_yields_by_the_2080s,_compared_to_2003_levels_(Cline,_2007).png (2008x1346, 67.88K)

It’s the natural result of capitalism and the inevitable globalization brought about through it. While capitalism is a progressive force in this sense, globalization is primarily used as a tool of the bourgeoisie for cheap, easily exploitable labor, the continued division of the proletariat between migrants / natives and the driving down of wages due to increased competition between wage-laborers. Keep in mind too that the migrant workers are often super-exploited in comparison to the natives in various ways (e.g. lower pay, worse conditions, longer hours), such as Central American migrants to the United States.

I'll bet dollars to donuts, especially in the case of tidier little scuffles like Central/South America or North Africa, that these destabilizations are created and intensified deliberately with the specific intent of laundering economic migrants.

Lenin has a short article on capitalism and worker’s immigration. It’s not exactly what you’re asking and most of the thread here is spot on. Give it a read, though, I found it pretty relevant (if not more to some degrees) even to modern times

Ideally it wouldn't be happening. The only winning move is not to play.

That said, strict assimilation should be mandated. Those insisting that immigrants can do no wrong, afraid of appearing far-right, only cede ground to the far-right calling to gun down the ships.

Because they're fucking stupid. What said is more or less the standard, most basic leftist analysis of the situation. The only factor it kind of leaves it out is climate change which is also directly caused by capitalism.

So then wait a minute, if this is the actual leftwing response, then who the hell wants open borders, “tolerance”, and multiculturalism in the first place?

Attached: 10934C56-723D-4DC9-8463-CCF0611E42FC.png (657x527, 235.25K)

Well we do want those things but we realize the negative effects from immigration in capitalism, support tolerance in terms of solidarity but not saying it's cool to behead women or whatever, and multiculturalism without the commodification and homogenization brought on by capitalism. Liberals are the ones you're thinking of and they're not welcome around here.

Attached: alunya ok.png (1024x1024, 178.71K)

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the notion of tolerance, globalization or really even multiculturalism (though friction can occur), it’s neoliberal capitalists driving it forward. It’s directly in their interest to push for the reasons described ITT, similar to the creation of supranational blocks like the EU

Well I hate capitalism too but there’s nothing else that would supplant it which would be better, it seems

I mean there have been trials of trying to implement socialism and communism but it never seems to work.

So what’s your solution? Do nothing?

Border control is racism. All of you are red fascists! We must not integrate migrants. If a migrant wants to be an islamic fundamentalist that thinks women are cettle we need to accept that. The real struggle of the left is the struggle against racism. Fuck the native working class. Except the females of course. We must establish anti-egalitarian gender quotas like the liberals suggested.

Attached: 20080930204121870_1.jpg (166x249, 32.94K)

Very much this. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, and desertification is happening rapidly in the region. Every year villages are able to grow fewer crops, which means fewer people can stay in the village and work as farmers. That means they have to go somewhere. The cities are already becoming overwhelmingly crowded because of this, which means people are trying other countries… often in Africa, but also countries like Morocco, Spain, France, Italy, and t*rkey. Desertification is literally pushing people out of the Sahel region, and that's only going to get worse and worse.

It's mostly America's fault for setting the whole region ablaze.

Well according to some Marxists the current system will eventually fall on itself, so doing nothing may be the ticket

So are you some sort of ultra-leftist? Should we strive for reforms under capitalism at all?

The America we see now wasn’t exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted anyways so I’m sure we can both agree it is an abomination created from delusional visionaries. There is even proof of them regretting what it had become in their later years.

I don’t claim to be anything.

A bit hard to have a discussion if you can’t even represent a specific position

Not the person you're replying to, but some leftists believe do believe reform is a futile effort and that hope lies only in revoluiton.

I definitely agree that trying to legislate / reform capitalism out of existence is futile due to the nature of bourgeois state and that revolution is the best way, but it’s a different thing to advocate against any reforms at all. If I was in such a position I would rather fight for reforms while keeping in mind that the ultimate fight is against capital itself rather than either cucking out to the bourgeoisie and adhering to legality in order to attempt to legislate capitalism out of existence or to do what might even be worse – opposing all reforms in an attempt to oppose capitalism, potentially grinding down the proletariat under the fist of capital more and more, driving them into even more misery – what I’m labeling the ultra-left position

I agree entirely, I'm just not sure why the position of complete anti-reformism would be "ultra" left.

In fact, I'm not even sure what tendency could be called "ultra" left. Anarcho-primitivism?

It comes from Lenin's "left-wing communism" where he got mad at people for not participating in elections or trade unions or other reformist organizations/activities.

To be fair and honest, my good man, I haven’t actually studied politics fully, therefore I am for the lack of a better term, a novice. So I have nitpicked things I like from both sides in an effort to formulate my own political background. I am sure once I get a better understanding of politics I will decide a “side” for myself eventually. In the meantime you can just call me a centrist.

A radical centrist.

Attached: C1947E1C-3989-4C40-BC48-C1F82960031B.jpeg (1036x1200, 233.18K)

Capitalism wont fall on itself. It will create unliveable conditions for the working class which will (hopefully) result in revolution. If we don't fight we will just roll over and die anyway.

Fair enough, we were all there at one point.

The criterion of scientific objectivity is not a supposed neutrality, which is nothing other than a dissimulation (and hence the perpetuation) of the given antagonism, or of the point of real exploitation. In any social conflict, a “neutral” position is always and necessarily the position of the ruling class: it seems “neutral” because it has achieved the status of the dominant ideology, which always strikes us as self-evident. The criterion of objectivity in such a case is thus not neutrality, but the capacity of theory to occupy a singular, specific point of view within the situation. In this sense, the objectivity is linked here to the very capacity of being “partial” or “partisan.” As Althusser puts it: when dealing with a conflictual reality (which is the case for both Marxism and psychoanalysis) one cannot see everything from everywhere (on ne peut pas tout voir de partout); some positions dissimulate this conflict, and some reveal it. One can thus discover the essence of this conflictual reality only by occupying certain positions, and not others, in this very conflict.

In fact, I'm not even sure what tendency could be called "ultra" left. Anarcho-primitivism?
The term “ultra-left” is pretty much a pejorative thrown at all sorts of people that are utopian or completely anti-reformist. I’m not even sure if it has an exact precise meaning. I’ve read a book which called Pol Pot ultra-left since he believed that all classes disappeared after the revolution, abolished money and religion, etc. Stuff like that, I guess (genocide aside)

I've heard it said sometimes that the vision of the founding fathers, most particularly Jefferson (e.g.: citizen-soldiers, small freeholding farmers and pioneers, local over national government, etc.), was ultimately reflected best in the form of South America. In that regard, ending up as an impediment to industrialization, dooming the region to poverty and the whims of distant foreign powers.

Like Marx said: Socialism or barbarism. The fact that capitalism is going to self-destruct doesn't mean the thing that comes after it, absent intervention, will be any better.

anprim is the absolute ultra-right, since it advocates for a return to a pre-civilisation society, basically as reactionary a position as one can take

Weakens workers significantly
Higher labour pool = less sway over the businesses

"crisis" they say.

Fuck off we're full. Put them in hungary or something.
Also they need to ban those fucktards patrolling litterally in libyan territorial waters to put pick "refugees". Those human traffickers should not be encouraged. If we find such a boat, we need to push the boat back and then burn it once they are off the boat. Right now they sometimes even give the fucking boat back to the human traffickers.

Also there is no way to solve this crisis without a strong leftist european government. The best I can hope for is damage controlling, reducing human suffering, propping up a new libyan government able to stop the tide of human traffickers (which also has many enslaved in labour and sex slavery), discouraging the economic migrants. Stabalizing syria by allowing assad to keep things back in line will allow the syrian refugees to go back while they and their children still feel syrian. As for the moment we also sadly need to stay friends with t*rkey, as they control the refugee flow into europe, which greece is unequiped to properly deal with.

I think it's horrible. We finally had a chance to stabilize population numbers in Europe and get ready for socialism and even post-scarcity, but porky's war had to screw it up and ofc he allowed it, after all, "constant growth" is the most important aspect of the economy.

Attached: despair.png (1070x601, 507.22K)

wew lad

Life is currently better in Europe, so people are gonna keep coming in Europe. That's a simple fact. Another fact: these people are proletarians. Should we proletarians support our class enemy's police harassing our fellow bclzss brothers and sisters? Should we support the bourgeois limiting the freedom of movement of the proletariat? Will it make our class stronger? Of course not.

*fellow class brothers

but neither will we be stronger if we appear to ignore the increasing problems the local proletariat will have as a result of the liberal migration policies the left is still relatively unwilling to criticise. immigration means upward pressure on rents, particularly in metropolitan areas and downward pressure on wages due to a larger reserve army of labour and easiness of exploiting immigrants harder than native workers due to lesser security and level of labour organisation. These are of course only problems due to the nature of capitalist society, but problems nontheless and we can't simply wave them away because they're not supposed to be problems.

The problems of the proletariat are the result, not of this or that immigration policy of the bourgeois government, but of our class's weakness. To be strong, we need to be organised, we need to be disciplined, we need to be commited, and we need to be united. If you support the harassing of a section of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie or worse, if you don't in the name the proletariat, then you're objectively making our class weaker.

Forgot my shitposting flag. Sorry.

*if you do it in the name of…

The problem is that:
1) Immigration is not a practical solution to global poverty, full stop. The number of people even capable of immigration is simply too tiny a fraction of the billions of global poor to be worth caring about.
2) Immigration IS A PRACTICAL means of undermining labor organization and population trends, both in rich and poor countries, to porky's advantage, and the global working class's disadvantage.

Class solidarity isn't all hugs and rainbows, sometimes it's necessary for everyone's sake to stand in the way of scabs.

Sometimes, when faggots say things like this, MTW sounds really fucking appealing.

indeed, but why would 'our class' support any sort of socialism if it is not directly in their benefit, in a material and straightforward way? waxing lyrical about vague self-sacrificial solidarity means nothing. nobody should support harrassment of the immigrants of whatnot, but it should still be opposed as detrimental to the political and economic interests of the proletariat. Solidarity with the immigrant, opposition to immigration.

well, you can be full of self-satisfying righteous indignation, always right and moral, but is it actually going to change anything for the better? people will act in their perceived self-interest, you can either feel good about yourself while vigorously moralising or actually take action to solve the problems in the world. You can't start by approaching the world as some kind of ideal, from a should be perspective. We look at the material world and how it influences things, and how we can influence the world towards the goals we have.
your shallow moralism isn't any better than perspectiveless woke liberals screaming about racism and homophobia while implicitly or explicitly supporting the structures maintaining the very oppression they claim to fight

Attached: yametahougaii.png (682x269, 76.83K)

It's pretty easy to say that when it ain't you staring down the barrel of a gun in a hellhole country

indeed, but that doesn't really matter at all. do you want to be right or feel justified? or do you want to change things for the better?

It does matter. It's the only thing that matters, actually.

Is that so.
Good luck.

Attached: ararara.png (680x552, 163.27K)

If I were one of the billions of 3rd-worlders that would never be able to emigrate under even the most insane open-borders policy, the overwhelming majority of 3rd-worlders?

Yeah, I would absolutely have zero difficulty telling you to fuck off with your masochistic virtue-signaling, and push for praxis that could actually solve 3rd-world poverty.

I do hope that when you're in the same situation I'm in, someone will show you some sympathy, instead of what you have shown me.

Oh please. As if first worlders would give up the cushy armchairs and actually do something

You realize neoliberalism has done absolutely nothing to help 1st-worlders, and in actuality has done the exact opposite, right? "Labor aristocracy" is one of the most retarded memes to emerge from Maotism, and that's saying something.

What crisis? Did I miss something?

Yes. Lmfao.

sympathy? I don't need sympathy, I wouldn't need sympathy. every individual life contains a tragedy or two. your sympathetic tears for all the particular tragedies in the world change nothing. you can cry like a confused child at the chaos, unfairness and injustice of it all - or you can face the world and try to affect it.
as I said, good luck.

Attached: you should've known that already.png (853x595, 622.19K)


Immigration happens wether you like it or not, full stop. As for the solution to global poverty, there's only one: the revolution.

Bullshit. Division and harassment of workers are practical means of undermining labour organisation. That's literally what you're supporting.

And what does that mean concretely, you idiot? How do you think the bourgeoisie fights immigration?

Nearly all immigration is legal, the majority of illegal immigration is the result of overstayed visas, and the small amount of genuine border hopping is fueled by our lax penalties on the employers that exploit them.
Depressing labor markets, infinite scabs, creating ghettos, fueling ethnocultural rightism, and propping up population growth in the 1st-world. Deflating political opposition movements, incentivizing purges, brain drain, diverting foreign aid, and maintaining fertility rates in the 3rd-world.

its a product of american imperialism and capitalism. immigrats emigrate for better economical conditions they will go where capital is acomulated and their homelands are being destroyed pretty much by imperialist forces so… It's all a product of capitalism tbh Thats how it goes. Marx predicted this shit.

I was going to stay clear of this thread but then I saw this bullshit and I had to say something. Migration is NOT just something that just happens, it is very easy to regulate. I don't have ready examples from other countries but in the UK, overall immigration rose massively following the election of the Blair government, and then specifically Eastern European immigration rose massively when those countries joined the EU (and when our government chose not to implement restrictions on migration from those countries). 'Immigration happens whether you like it or not' is open-borders propaganda with no factual basis.

Let's assume for one second that you have any kind of control over the bourgeois government's visa policy (which you don't): do you think people will magically stop going from the poorest continent on earth, to the richest continent on earth? Restrictions on visas only turn legal immigration into illegal one.

And your solution is to ask the bourgeois state to enforce stronger penalties on… bourgeois? Employers that exploit them can and must be fought by the working class. This is not possible if one section of the working class sides with the bourgeoisie against another section of the working class.

What? You think less workers means less unemployment? What are you, 12?

You're the scab here.

Thanks to people like you.

You wanna stop fueling it? Start by not falling for it yourself.

Ok, so? Are you Malthusian now?

Say what?

Oh you're afraid for the poor little 3rd world bourgeoisies? That's cute.

Say what?

Going Malthusian again, huh?

We're not talking about slavery, you dishonest scum. Answer the question: how do you fight immigration without harassing the migrants?

Did Blair and the EU force the to move to UK, you genius?

The history of labor union campaigning forcing down quotas speaks otherwise
We've done it before, it can be done again.
Absolutely, it also means higher wages, and more leverage for unions.
I'm not the one pouring millions of penniless people directly into the bottom of our labor market (or worse, given that unemployment rates for immigrants are identical to the rest of the population!).
It's been proven repeatedly that higher population density decreases standard of life, not to mention that the sooner we stabilize our population at sustainable levels, the better.
Dissidents and undesirables are the first to leave "willingly", and preexisting emigration provides cover for politically motivated forced cleansings.
You realize skilled trades and graduates of higher education aren't "bourgeoisie" in Marxist terminology, right?
Not much the case in the US, but funds used for refugees in high-cost-of-living countries are being used as an excuse to slash foreign aid, especially by Europe.
Tell me how lower population wouldn't be beneficial to most of the 3rd-world
Aren't we? Every single argument I've ever heard in favor of mass economic immigration is recycled nearly verbatim from antebellum slavery apologia, vid highly related.
By sealing borders against human rights arbitrage in all forms, and actually fixing the broken nations where billions of people that immigration could never possibly help live their lives.
You can't strike without keeping out scabs. This is necessary both for the future welfare of yourself, and for the future welfare of the scabs.

Attached: Noam Chomsky - Does Economic Growth Justify the System.mp4 (256x144, 5.04M)

Bleh, vid's missing sound, guess I need to comb through my meme folder for bad encodes. Here's the sauce:

You've gotten replies from others, but on "multiculturalism", since that's the most incoherent concept liberals shill for, communists as a whole are fine with the coexistance of different cultures but we by and large don't want some kind of forced homogenization because it simply doesn't make sense; for example, if the 1st world nations moved beyond capitalism to socialism/communism we would be more interested in assisting 3rd world nations in attaining the same level of development in their own nations (although using the term "nation" here isn't really the correct word), the reality is that most people would prefer to just stay where they are, the average Afghani man or what have you would rather work & live in his own community; and it's the political and economic factors in his life outside of his real control that influence his decision to migrate

Here are a couple of things by a guy called C.Derrick Varn interrogating the Liberal concept of Multiculturalism:


t. not Zig Forums

Is the migrant crisis the ultimate victory of the Spectacle? It's blown out of proportions like nothing before, and seemingly nobody cares about the truth of the matter anymore. Everyone just keeps repeating the same lies, even after it was debunked.

The same is happening for all alt right claims. Liberalism is too pathetic to defend its own existence because its leaders are all too busy robbing the treasury and they can make money from promoting fascism (ie ad revenue). I really don't know what to do about it.

Problem solving isn't about sympathy.

No matter how much I may empathize with someone in such a situation, the misery of their predicament doesn't really factor in to how a practical solution may be found.

pretty much given how the refugee "horde" is less than 1% of europe's population

What is the solution to the migrant problem? It’s only going to keep getting worse with climate change and will naturally persist under capitalism. On one hand I feel for those who have no choice but to leave their countries to find a better life in Europe, but on the other I agree that uncontrolled mass migration is just going to be used to fuel right-wingers in Europe and benefit the capitalist class in various ways

yes but these are mostly young men from violent cultures. young black males are only a small % of the us population but they cause plenty of problems.

not true but ok


my impression is that young black guys in burgerland are mostly a threat to each other than anyone else. i'll see alt-right types on the internet point out "black crime rates" while leaving out who the victims are. ninety percent of the time the victims are black. i'm a white burger and have never had problems with black men beyond some light teasing and i live in a "minority-majority" city with a fairly high rate of crime in the south. [example: being the only white guy on the street at 2 a.m. in a nightlife district. hear a random voice: "woah nigga! look at the skinny white dude over there!"] like this isn't a big deal. i don't do stupid shit or get in other people's business though.

the way violence works is that people resort to it when they feel threatened and when the consequences of not resorting to violence are potentially worse than the alternatives. if you're white and someone disrespects you or tries to play games with you in public, it's not so big a deal. but black and brown communities are different environments and young men have more to lose if they allow other males to play games with them like that. the formula i heard once is [young men + stupid beef + gun = dead body.] but i don't get into stupid beef with people. they're violent with each other because they're freaked out and scared by each other and the stupid beef between them escalates.

and white people are scared of them so that's why white people farm out their violence using proxies (the police, mainly).

Attached: michael_bolton.jpg (305x165, 5.26K)

another example, there's this whole trend now of youtube pranksters and now right-wing "trigger duh libs" provocateurs who get in people's faces in public and try to argue with them in bad faith. this worked on college campuses for awhile because college kids (many of them liberal, many of them white and middle-class) assume good faith and that allows the provocateur to get away with humiliating them like that. but lately i've been seeing more videos where they'll wind up on the street and try it on a black or brown guy and shit pops up very quickly.

this video i saw recently was in los angeles and the right-wing provocateurs started pleading "he's a marine! a marriiiiine!" when these skinny cholos beat up their ex-marine "bodyguard" after this camera crew tried to play games with them and the "bodyguard" started laying hands on people during an argument. oh no, not a marine! he's untouchable!

another example. i tried arguing with some alt-right german on the internet and he was freaked out by the "rapefugee" immigrant crime problem, and he showed me a google map interface someone made tracking all the "rapefugee crime" in germany. and if you were zoomed out, it looked like germany was covered in crimes. but once you zoomed in, and in a country of 80 million, it was like one crime per city, and one city will have 100,000 people living in it. and that one crime was a car broken into. the horror!

like i'm not exactly living in caracas here but that's some piddling shit.

anyways i don't know what the answer is but marxist black self-determination is a start. i think the alt-right is like the flipside of the liberals where the solution is to either "help" or "punish" or both; either way it's a need for control. if you listen to right-wing A.M. talk radio in burgerland now, you know they frame their arguments for immigration controls as a means of both punishing the invaders and also helping them. "it's so terrible how the immigrants are to themselves" basically which justifies these punitive police-state measures.

Attached: michael_bolton_2.jpg (370x278, 76.57K)

'Three-quarters of refugees who entered Germany in 2015 are males, two thirds younger than 33 years old, with low working experience, a new study by the German national immigration service says.'

Is this supposed to be an argument? Do you think people from all cultures are equally likely to commit crime?

Blacks mostly kill other blacks because they mostly have contact with other blacks. Still, blacks are a danger to whites and the presence of blacks in America has made white people less safe.

Keep saying the same lies, maybe they will become truth once you have repeated them enough times.


europe is bigger than germany my dude

once you account for material conditions, yes

do me a favour and pop "slavery" or "lynching" into your search engine

Attached: xUTCnQE.gif (202x129, 16.72K)

You can watch his campaigning vids on YT if you want to hear for yourself. Their website also says they are feminist before everything else (yes, also socialism, which is supposed to be EGALITARIAN). Tbh I can assure you that they are red coated eurolibs at this point. They even accepted a green liberal group as their new youth organization. PdA are the actual Communists. Kpö and SuccDems can get fucked.

Attached: Laughing_Marx.jpg (480x563, 141.2K)

This thread is for left wingers btw. We got another containment thread for you.

Yeah I bet the German government made press releases about how violent other cultures are.

I think he was on about the ethnicity, gender and age of the refugees.

I used to hold an opinion similar to this: , but then I realised that very very large majority of immigrants are coming to Europe seeking a better life, escaping war or just shitty economical situations. They risk their lives to try to secure a better existence for their children.

We have to accept immigrants with open arms, and extend to them all the help we can give them. What else are we protecting? Our oppressive States? Our 'free market'? Our middle-class existence that is not enjoyed by 80% of the planet?

Europe has built itself on the extraction of resources from the rest of the World. We enjoy a high standard of living because we have outsourced production to other countries where they ignore or just don't have worker protection laws, decent wages or good working conditions. We buy things ignoring the social relations embedded in them because we are comfortable.

Fuck that. Unironically, REFUGEES WELCOME.

Sorry, not realised, but allowed myself to empathise.

Do you seriously think that mass economic immigration could ever scale up to within the same ballpark as the base population growth rate in the 3rd world, meanwhile obliterating the 1st world economy in this folly? Do you think reparations from the thin wedge of disposable income migrants at the bottom of the labor pool earn, are greater than what a median 1st worlder could pay into foreign aid without our piontless military spending? Do you imagine attempting to evacuate a significant fraction of the BILLIONS of 3rd worlders as a viable solution to global poverty, rather than simply sending our laws and robust anti-corruption regime to them?

Seriously, what do you hope to accomplish with mass economic immigration, other than flagellating yourself, and having a few pet house niggers in (the worst parts of) your hometown to virtue signal at? I care about helping humanity, even if it means hurting some individuals, more than I care about shallow short term moral gratification.

Simply false. Offshoring devastated the 1st-world labor market to such an extent that, relative to median income, consumer commodities are actually MORE EXPENSIVE.

And here we have a case of short sighted pathological altruism.

Attached: jps.jpg (1184x789, 103.4K)


basically this:

This is a /r/socialism or larping Zig Forums user

I was not aware he was imitating some KPO guy, I thought he just unironically(?) commented that

Also, PdA has only 100 members, so basically Austria is fucked either way

So should we advocate anti-immigration policies under capitalism?