Why are they right about literally everything? I've followed a lot of news sources but so far nothing beats the analysis given by the WSWS. Its extremely revealing looking at their past analysis of events such as 9/11 and realizing that while publications like the Nation took a reactionary stance, the WSWS stood by socialist principles and presented a scientific analysis of events in line with Marxism.

Attached: open-graph-icon.png (1500x785, 207.72K)

Other urls found in this thread:–United_States_border

Go home leon.

Where are the pictures of that Japanese girl with that perfect ass?

Written in February 26,2016, the WSWS predicted the economic nationalism behind Sander's rhetoric and his subsequent backing of the Democratic party and the military establishment.

Shitty taste, my fam.

Everyone excpet for socdems predicted that.

Nope a lot of "anarchists" like Chomsky clearly supported Sanders and in fact approximately more than half of Zig Forums was backing Bernie Sanders

He was preferable to Trump and Clinton if only for the fact that his presence meant more attention on people's economic problems. He's basically irrelevant now, and his irrelevance will be cemented when he tries to run as a Democrat in 2020 and gets locked out so they can push Kamala Harris or Joe Kennedy or someone.

Sanders will get phased out by the DSA candidates like Ocasio-Cortez, who are infact shills for the capitalist system. A fact firmly noted by the WSWS. Through every crisis, the working class falls further into the grasp of communism but organizations such as the DSA function as nets to make sure that the working class does not rebel against the capitalist mode of production.

Chomsky has long supported the "lesser evil" in burger elections and Zig Forums wanted Sanders to shift the overton window left and lose to show the Democrats were unsalvageable.

sour grapes

You fell for a "libertarain" idea.

It is also a huge mistake to think that Sanders represents anything new in American politics as Jesse Jackson ran for president with ideas for "Medicare for All". In fact the "Medicare for all" is the most "radical" proposal of the so called "socialist" left.

The role of Sanders and the DSA is to shift the conversation away from socialism and into welfare capitalism….and by calling themselves socialists, Sanders and the DSA have made socialism mean welfare capitalism rather than the means of production being owned and operated by the working class.

Overton window is correct in that "acceptable discourse" can be changed by the normalization of ideas. The rise of overt nationalism accompanying Trump or the rise in socdems and genuine socialists appearing after the demoralization of the democratic party. That a libertarian named such a phenomenon doesn't make it untrue.
On the contrary he, and right wing media personalities, sanitized socialism for us so we no longer have to work through muh stalin or muh gorgillions to discuss socialism. We haven't seen anything like this in burger politics for decades, and it is a benefit worth dealing with the influx of socdems that accompanied it.

There are no "genuine socialists" arising after Sanders. Just social democrats who are gaining prominence. Genuine socialists now have to fight not only neoliberals and the far rights but also social democrats who are gaining prominence as the gatekeepers of capitalism

There's been large uptick of anarchists and marxists who were radicalized because of 2016 showing elections were a farce. If you haven't noticed this then you're either don't go outside or are a member of a decaying party.


Name a genuine socialist running for office? Yes, there has been an increase in socialists and marxists spectators but that is due to the decaying conditions of capitalism. Politicians like Sanders were needed to stop the flow of votes from heading to third parties. The radicalization of the working class is not because of Sanders or the DSA it is in spite of it. And when the time of crisis approaches, then these same politicians and groups that you hail will be actively working to shut down any sort of working class movements and divert it into welfare capitalism.

A genuine socialist wouldn't be running for office. That's in the domain of socdems, of both the red and rose clutching varieties.
The reemergence of socdems is an indication of such, and their failures to change or challenge capitalism are a componet of why people are getting radicalized.
The realization that sanders and his downfall radicalized people is hardly and endorsement of him or the DSA. You need to be a fool or blinded by dogma to not realize that the recently radicalized overlapped with 2015-2016 berniefags by a very large margin and that the failure of socdems drives people towards socialism.

In conditions of global warming and widespread nuclear arms the failure of social democrats will be catastrophic in nature. That's why its essential to fight social democrats and expose their hypocrisy. The only good we can take away from Sanders or Cortez gaining support is that the working class are getting more and more desperate however praising these politicians rather than actively fighting against them will be catastrophic.

That's what I've been saying the entire thread. That burgers, who have been a diet of bourgeois propaganda their entire lives, would support a socdem on a mass scale is good news for us. Because when said socdems inevitably fail and plead to support the liberals, a number of their dissatisfied supporters will radicalize and become socialists.


Organizing in the community won't do anything if what you're organizing for is welfare capitalism.

‘Tis true, alas me lassy I was there.

We must side with Woody Allen and Harvey Weinstein against underage females' imperialism

Do you disagree that there needs to be proof about accusations of rape before claims are taken seriously? WSWS is absolutely right about the #MeToo movement which claims to be on the side of women everywhere yet ignores the blatant sexual abuse suffered by migrant women.

Wooswoos has a mostly decent, but hilariously consistent take on things. This results in the following typical flaws:

Jacobin is basically the exact opposite of wooswoos, in that they lack any clear editorial policy whatsoever. One day they'll publish fawning Clintonite shitlib SJW normalfaggotry right off the pages of Gawker or Vox, the next they'll publish hard-hitting socialist materialist invective that reads like a longpost off this board.

Beyond tits, beyond ass. she is the distilled essence of womanhood.

Attached: Ushijima-san.png (856x1498, 42.67K)

I like Jacobin.


Their stance on labor unions is ridiculous. They call for "rank and file committees" to replace mainstream AFL/CIO unions, but there are little to no substantive instructions on how to actually begin forming these committees, nor any evidence of anyone attempting to form one after years of agitation. To make room for these "rank and file committees", the existing unions must be crushed - they parrot right wing propaganda, claiming that mainstream unions do nothing for their members but steal dues and buy influence in the Democratic Party - ignoring readily available Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing take home pay increases of over 25% in 2014 (not even a profitable year, too). What's even worse, they actually urge workers to vote "no" in NLRB elections and recently praised the Janus vs. AFSCME decision to make the public sector Right to Work. This is ignoring the actual Trotskyist legacy of radical unions like Teamsters Local 574, who for years campaigned on the slogan of "Make Minneapolis a Union (Shop) Town".

Rank and file unions exist and are a true representative of the working class rather than the corrupt AFL-CIO, UAW, the Teamsters(which you rally behind), and many others which has time and time again proven to be behind reactionary policies and agendas.

As for the wage increases "won" by the unions. Sure, unions do negotiate wage increases for its members and at one time these increases helped raise the standard of living for the avg american worker. However, the unions also function as an arm of the democratic party by limiting class anger and limiting strikes. There are numerous examples of this which I could point you towards if you wish. Now, however, any wage increases that the union negotiates is done by limiting the supply of labor and excluding masses of part-time workers who are being exploited. This is also part of the reason why unions are extremely reactionary and are completely behind anti-immigrant polices.

Attached: wtf_vercse.jpg (200x196, 7.12K)

i think radleft groups should really keep themselves separate from union politics, you could offer your opinion or try to help out on a picket line or whatever but actually trying to take over organised labour is only going to annoy the workers

Talking about a single tendency in DSA is nonsensical, they are a broad coalition of demsocs, socdems, Marxists, and anarchists.

The DSA organization is a joke. Their structure is extremely reactionary and based in identity politics.

But that's a minor point compared to the fact that the heads of the DSA are blatant sheepdogs.

Among the "honorary chairs" who function as the heads of the organization are figures such as Dolores Huerta, a union beauraucrat who supported Clinton over Sanders in the primary and Gloria Steinhem, a former CIA collaborator.

The history of the DSA is also incredibly revealing. It's predecessor was the DSOC and It was formed after a split with the Socialist Party of America in 1972, and this party had expelled American supporters of the Russian Revolution in 1919. One of the founders of the DSOC was Micheal Harrington, whose mentor was a supporter of American imperialism in the Korean war and the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba: Max Schatman. Harrington proved to be an opportunist himself by coming out against the Vietnam War when it was far too late. Dont take my word for it, the DSA says so itself.

This is the guy the dsa claims is the "most significant socialist of the last half of the twentieth century". To get an even more in depth perspective of the bankrupt politics of the DSA, read the WSWS.

It’s no secret that there is a battle between the DSA rank and file membership and their socdem/left liberal leadership. The former draws from a diverse array of tendencies, including revolutionary anti-capitalists of various stripes. It simply remains to be seen whether or not these tendencies will overcome the established leadership. You can’t look at the programmes of the various radical caucuses within the DSA and seriously tell me that they are reactionary.


Attached: 1530385723611.png (299x325, 149.42K)

This is the same logic used to justify "transforming" the democratic party. However, I do expect DSA membership to drop drastically in the coming years as "rank and file membership" will begin to realize that the organization is fundamentally opposed to their interests.

You don't have to "imply" facts, they are true even if you don't say it out loud.


shut up liberal

Unironically kill yourself.

Attached: 1530292520848.png (883x691, 406.59K)

put up or shut up faggot

t. idiot third worldist who has never worked a day in a soup kitchen and seen just how poor american workers can be

Not an argument.

First I have worked in soup kitchens. Second that's not how this works. If you restrict immigration porky just makes life harder for the "native" workers in order to squeeze more profit from them. Did you actually think that class collaboration would work this time? lol

Attached: 762eb3de28045d062033923c64252623a7185d800dafa663aa8fcc20a44a4a59.png (847x744, 179.69K)

Are you also a nationalist?

How exactly would that work, without access to infinite slave scabs and overseas sweatshops?

Are you a huwite guilt-mongering Maotist-turd-worldist?

The US doesn't even have a trade unionist movement worth speaking of, what makes you think eliminating the supply of below legal minimum wage immigrant workers would prevent porky from just eliminating the limited labor protections American workers currently enjoy? There's literally nothing to stop them, half of them already jerk themselves dry daily talking about how minimum wage needs to be abolished because it's creating a black market for labor. And if you unironically think you can get rid of outsourcing then you're fucking nuts, the entire global bourgeoisie would crush any attempt at that, hurting US workers and fueling the neoliberal narrative in the process.

We may not have much unions, but we have the will to rebuild them.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

Attached: kbmwvyksteemwmza6vup1q.png (747x477 11.75 KB, 72.48K)

Shut up scab.

The militancy of the IWW at its strongest was full of immigrants you fucktard.

Attached: brainlet7.png (586x578, 37.04K)

And directly complemented by immigration quotas pushed by the AFL. The worst weapon against current migrants are future migrants.

no they aren't. they have shit social views and are basically SocDems or Radlibs by definition.

Closing up borders will not put an end to capitalism and is in fact a fascist tactic to ensure that workers of the world fight among each other.

Closing up borders has always preceded war, and therefore you would actually be aiding the survival of capitalism by helping condition the nation-state for war plans.

You should drop the anarchist flag and call yourself a social democrat.

And the greatest weapon against the international proletariat is national identitarian false consciousness

Who are we going to fight? Europe? Our FDI-dependent bitches in China? The economically and militarily microscopic paper tiger that is Russia? Gimme a break.

Closing the borders to human rights arbitrage is the first step to giving economic leverage to workers, so we can put the screws to porky. Seriously, what exactly is it that you imagine mass economic immigration does to help 3rd-worlders, anyway? Do you seriously think evacuating 6 billion desperately poor, even if it were somehow possible, will fix something? Do you believe the remittances squeezed out of the meagerest income bracket in the economy, amounting to about double the sum of global development aid, is somehow beyond our ability to better with more generous humanitarian spending? There had better be something more substantial behind your views that virtue-signalling, masochism, or accelerationism.

This has nothing to do with nationalism or other idpol, and everything to do with the structure of law.

Look, the regulatory regimes that aid labor, and impede capital, are bound in the nation state right now, correct? Since our borders delineate where these regulations are and aren't in effect, who benefits by weakening these borders against other nation states with laws that favor capital more against labor?

There is no reason to believe the result of your infantile moralizing will be international proletarian liberation, rather than transnational corporate dictatorship.

"Closing borders" is bourgeois police killing proletarians. No more, no less. You're quite the anarchist.

Ask migrants.

6 billion people can't/don't want to come anyway. And do you seriously think killing those who try will fix something?

What kind of a la-la-land do you live in?

That's what we live in. That's what is "bound to the nation states". And that's what you support, you scab.

Ever heard of class struggle?

No, it's issuing less visas, and cracking down on illegal employers.
Hmm, a few tens of millions of migrants, versus over a billion 1st-worlders, and several billion 3rd-worlders. Yah nah fuck off.
Good first step, keep going..

The kind with superior material conditions to the 3rd-world, as a direct result of successful labor agitation.
To an extent, a far, far lesser extent than the 3rd-world.
Sure thing. Maybe we should try spreading our material conditions abroad, rather than opening ourselves up to theirs?

There is a reason that capitalists around the world are increasing their military budgets.

That reason is simple. It is to prepare for world war. There's been increased sanctions placed on Iran, t*rkey, Russia, and now trade war threatened with China as well as tariffs threatened on Europe in order to expand up areas for exploitation and destroy competition for global hegemony. The global breakdown of capitalism with its increasing asset and speculative bubbles is bound to explode and the US is clearly making a conscious decision to use its military power to retain its hegemony.

Who "we"(identifying with the United States seems to imply that loyalty to nation is greater for you than loyalty to the global proletariat) are going to fight depends entirely on many variable factors but whether the US can easily crush its opponents matters far less than the fact that millions of regular people will suffer due to the coming conflicts. I highly suggest you take time and read Capital by Marx to have a greater understanding of how capitalism functions and to look at the example of WW1 and WW2 to gain a picture of how capitalism restores its rate of profit.

The fact that you believe that "6 Billion" people will need to be "evacuated" shows your intellectual dishonesty. The amount of global refugees are approximately 60 million people, and in ~50 years about 59 million people immigrated to the US, this includes all immigrants, documented or undocumented. By all means, the scale of economic migration is far exaggerated especially by fascists but it to hear it from a supposed far leftist is incredibly surprising.

And it is a bit sad that I have to explain what economic migrants from third world countries have to gain from moving to the west. Places destroyed by imperialism and filled with life threatening conditions. Of course they move to improve their material standard of living. As for what it will "fix", it wont fix anything besides providing temporary relief to the most oppressed, which is a net good. Of course only the overthrow of capitalism will help the world but to do that the nation-state would also need to dissolve, and tightening up migration serves mainly to increase the power of the nation-state. By closing off migration, workers of the world become more subservient to the nation rather than their class, and nationalism will serve to make workers of the world fight against one another rather than fight against their oppressors.

As I had pointed out earlier in this post and also by an elementary understanding of history, it is clear that labor unions function as a nationalist arm of labor. After all the fascist regimes of Hitler, Franco, Salazar, etc, all could hold on to power in large part due to labor unions deciding to fuse with the capitalist state in order to quell strikes and working class discontent. In the US, the largest labor unions like the AFL-CIO have a long history of supporting imperialism abroad as well as a long history of making sure that strikes are confined and don't spill over to the wider proletariat. An unaccountable union bureaucracy breeds corruption and collusion with the capitalist class, their goal is to give out crumbs in order to quell working class opposition and contain it. Rank and file workers unions led by a vanguard party is the only proven way to overthrow the capitalist class and for this to occur the union bureaucracy must be destroyed.

Do some research yourself and look at widespread corruption within the largest US unions to confirm what I have just written. US unions are anti-working class and will collude with capitalists.

That’s assuming that the rank and file won’t succeed in taking control of the org. I wouldn’t surprised if they at the very least adopt a demsoc line at the national level. Saying “well the leadership are socdems so let’s not bother” is pure defeatism. If you want to get anything done in burger politics you are going to have to devote at least some resources and effort to electoral politics, and at the moment the DSA is the best vehicle to do that. Or you can hold pathetic matches with 20 people and issue endless declarations denouncing everybody else as revisionists.

Because the collaborationist stance with post-USSR Russia before Putin began his chestbeating is temporarily weakened, the EU is flailing suicidally in its final moments before replacement or dissolution of their antipopulist neolib technocracy, and China is pretending it can be a global power before its sham of an economy is forced to diversify or crumble. All of this is pretty symbolic stuff, with little in the way of long-term impact.
There will be no world war, there can be no world war. Even if nuclear deterrence didn't exist, as I stated above, there are no serious antagonists among today's great military powers. As for regular people suffering, you realize there are countless wars happening every year, all over the 3rd-world, that nobody gives a shit about, killing hundreds of thousands every year, and brutalizing unnumbered more?

There may be some bigger than usual, if I were to take a wild guess, the breakup or downfall of the Saudi monarchy would probably be a pretty terrifying shitstorm, but those wars are hardly some grand clash of great powers to rejuvenate the capitalist vampire.

If you're talking about natural disasters and wars, those people would be better helped if evacuated somewhere fully compensated that is economically, culturally, and geographically closer, not to mention internal evacuation, due to PPP.

Then what point is there, long-term?
Plus descendants, accounting for a total >72 million population increase, sufficient to prevent our growth rate matching Japan's over the period.
I never said it's huge, especially compared to the 3rd-world overall, but it's been more than sufficient to destroy organized labor, especially combined with offshoring from the tatters of our tariff system.

Factually incorrect, immigrants are overwhelmingly NOT from the most poor and desperate strata of their societies, let alone from the worst off countries of the world, for obvious reasons of powerlessness.

Pure sophistry. I can just as easily point to a lack of brain drain, easy opportunities to purge undesirables, and greater mutual aid from stronger labor unions abroad in the 3rd-world. In the 1st-world, to stronger labor, weaker capital, less imperialism, and less idpol shitstirring.

That hardly means only the final push off the cliff will improve material conditions
Why? To grant transnational capital greater autonomy, while giving labor less than nothing? Every reform we win is a loaded gun in our hands, a chain around theirs.

After they had crushed the power of the unions, just like Lenin and Mao.
Every single gain of the masses in history has been at the hands of unions, union members are to this day the buoy of what proletarian prosperity exists, and union members remain the dedicated nucleus of every socialist movement in history.
Oh, great, red fascism, the perfect antidote to proletarian democracy"union bureaucracy".

What a self-serving, sectarian definition.

If you're still into electoralism you're an opportunist or an idiot.

Criticizing the mainstream trade union apparatus is fine by me, I'm well aware of the AFL/CIA's anticommunist intrigues and corruption. What I'm objecting to is taking that so far as to actively attack existing labor unions and labor laws. The WSWS's praxis and even its rhetoric to a certain extent is now hard to distinguish between corporate funded anti-union propaganda. Teamsters Local 574, lead by Trotskyist idols like James Cannon, organized a massive general strike partially on the basis of establishing the Union Shop in law - now the WSWS, claiming to represent his legacy, is celebrating a Right to Work decision. You mention UE as an exemplar of Rank and File committees but I have not seen them mentioned anywhere in WSWS coverage. Frankly I think it's safe to assume that any union not explicitly affiliated with the Socialist Equality Party would be condemned as "Pseudo-Left".

Unironically read Lenin:

The ultra-sectarianism is frustrating and I keep wanting someone to prove them wrong, but as long as the left is this terrible at getting their shit together I might as well recommend them, although I do have a couple disagreements.

This isn't closing borders, you dumb fuck. You think people won't come if they don't have visas.

as opposed to the failure of the left to organise leaving the status quo in place, which will be a veritable picnic except for the lack of healthcare.

yeah outsourcing jobs to foreigners who will work for less pay is REALLY showing capitalism the door!

What does it have to do with migrants?

No they won’t dumbass, the vast majority of illegals come via expired VISAs, not that many do it crossing the desert.


Because it's dangerous?

And why is it dangerous to come to Europe or the US?–United_States_border

Unless you absolutely have no other choice, it's infinitely more rational to enter a country with legal means and a safe trip then overstaying rather than attempting to travel an hostile nature on your own.

Wheter blocking all legal access would dry up the flow of migration or just make more people choose the more dangerous option is another debate however.

Attached: 1b5a163637d03b7a84d68cfd1bb85e5a274eda488e25c3ca0a07036b98e45f74.png (333x249, 98.49K)

And why do illegal migrants cross deserts rather than having a safe trip?

Because some don't have a choice. It is not guaranteed that if you ask for a VISA it will be granted, especially if you come from a poor country and happens to be unemployed and pennyless, but this is where the rubber hit the road, because unemployment and poverty is more often than not the reason you attempt to leave your conutry in the first place.

But, you might ask, why don't they just give up?
Risking death in hope of having a better life is a more appealing prospective than living in poverty ridden and/or war torn countries where you'll wait to be killed or die of starvation, at least to some people.

Not really. What I ask is: why not have a safe trip without visa? Why not take the bus, the plane, a regular boat, whatever safe mean of transportation without visa?

Because travel companies won't let you board without VISA? I mean, did you ever have a trip outside your own country? Why do you think they're checking passports?

What about cars?

Btw, what would happen if a company took people onboard without visas?

Don't take offense user, but how recluse are you exactly?
Note that some try indeed to cross through these, but given you have to be hidden or get arrested, you fall back on potential dangerous measures

Oh, so you mean the use of force by police is what actually stops people from migrating?

The police detaining you then sending you back in your country ruining all of your efforts is the reason why illegal migrants are avoiding them.
But it doesn't stop them from attempting to migrate.

Exactly. So you have on one hand working-class people who want to move freely; and on the other hand bourgeois police using violence against them. As a proletarian, I know where my loyalty lies; and much more importantly: I know what's harmful to the workers movement.

That's why I emphasized harsh punishment for illegal employers. No pull factors means no aliens.

Also, human traffickers will sometimes convince rubes they undercut the price of legal visas.

No, merely the threat.

Backed by what? Hmm?

Absolutely nothing, if it works, which it does in the majority of cases, especially if the availability of illegal jobs in the destination country dried up due to enforcement. As opposed to successful mass economic immigration, which does nothing or less to fix 3rd-world poverty, and does much to aid porky.

So let's make things clear: you, as an "anarcho-comlunist", call the bourgeois police to threaten workers to arrest and detain them if they come to the country you live in, but to do absolutely nothing of the sort of they actually come. That's what you're saying?

You, as a shitlib, call the slavetraders to pour scabs into the economy, but you do absolutely nothing to fix their country, or even stop ours from ruining theirs. That's what you're saying?

Answer the question, scab. Do you, or do you not, want the bourgeois police to actually arrest and detain, in one word: to use violence against workers who might cross the border of the country you live in?

Do I want scabs to destroy this country while doing less than nothing to fix theirs, or do I want the industrial regulations that make this country harder for porky to exploit enforced by violence? The latter, duh.

Obviously, much like a strikeline standing up to strikebreakers, there are indirect ways to minimize the amount of violence that actually happens, but in the end, some is unavoidable.

Why, what good do you hope mass economic immigration will do?




this but unironically

Say it clearly scab: you want the bourgeois police to arrest and detain workers.

No one is fooled by the lame excuses you sperg out like a little parrot; daddy Porky promised you a little extra on your wage if only you helped him take on your fellow proletarians so you do it, like the good little scab you are.

Within socialism, sure.
After all laws and their enforcement regimes have been harmonized, yeah.
When there aren't any more perverse incentives, totally.