I've been thinking about, how to establish a communist movement in the first world and
I came to this conclusion:
I think it is very difficult at the moment, to win the working class in west europe for a real communist program.
But if we turn our focus to the bottom layers of this society, then it looks
much better for us. In concrete terms, I attribute to the refugees a high degree of revolutionary potential.
These people are literally completely disenfranchised, poor and outclassed.
I think that many new comrades can be found at the refugee shelters. If we help them and give them an explanation for
their living conditions (keyword: imperialism), then some people will certainly turn to us.
The working class in my country Germany, is too embourgeoisified. The refugees, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing to lose,
they are not even recognized as human beings by the West.
If my previous assessment is correct, the left-wing demand for open borders is also necessary and a
logical consequence, because it accelerates the growth of our movement. Then a small part of the German working class will join us while
the rest will turn completely to fascism. What happens then, we all know. (Of course we win!)
Refugees as a revolutional subject
I've been thinking about, how to establish a communist movement in the first world and
Other urls found in this thread:
Has the EU started it's own COINTELPRO or something?
The EU is against refugees, did you miss Juncker's latest speech?
I cannot speak for that, since I'm american and we don't get as much refugees as you do, but I see the exact same parallel with mexican/latin american immigrants.
If anything, porky is forcing them to migrate because of the terrible economic conditions, so they have quite a lot of resentment against the bourgeoisie.
Thing is, the working class is blaming them for all economic ailments, instead of actually letting them join worker's unions.
Actions vs. words
No, they are criminals and rapists just like us.
What kind of actions are you speaking of? Are you living under the rock? The EU has been anti-immigrant for a while now.
Crime and rape are not a problem in my gated community.
They're better because they work for less.
t. Zig Forums
pic very much related
Do tell us what you consider "life skills" to be.
Firstly, speaking the primary language of the country you reside in should be a must.
Idk, maybe if not so many fucking syrians left their country and actually fought the US backed rebels the war would be over by now. Let the women and children leave but the men should stay to defend their country from the imperialists.
on which side? frankly the civil war simplifies to DEFEND GLORIOUS ANTI-IMPERIALIST ASSAD only in the minds of juvenile western MLs
and generally people don't want to go die in wars, and since young men are by far the most likely group to be forcefully conscripted one way or the other, it makes sense they'd try and leave.
Ah yes, the old "I'm so alienated from the working class that the only way I can conceive of revolution is by importing foreigners, whose mystical orientalist class consciousness will defeat my obviously fascist home nation" strategy
A classic winner
There is nothing mystical about this. The western working class is simply too privileged, to be a revolutionary force. The refugees came from the third world and are considered as subhumans by the west. What do they have to lose, compared to the western labor aristocracy?
I may have worded it a bit strangely, let me clarify myself:
I don't hate Rojava. I don't think they are american puppets but the time they've chosen to start their democratic confederation is extremely inconvinient. I know they are the ones that have fought the hardes against ISIS but for the sake of Syria and being pragmatic they need to ally themselves with the government to fight ISIS and the rebels. And yeah, it's very easy for me to say all that shit about fighting the imperialists/religious fundamentalists while I live in a western country but it's what I believe this people should do instead of fleeing to Europe.
Assad is based, it takes a real man to stand up to the Jews like that
you think they could just pick a time on a calendar? schedule a meeting with the Syrian government maybe - "let's discuss our practical plans for Kurdish separatism and regional autonomy on Thursday, Mr. Assad?"
my point wasn't to moralise about 'westerners in their safe bubbles' but to say that your perspective doesn't match with the reality on the ground. The Syrians by and large don't see the conflict as between imperialist rebels and anti-imperialist Assad, but between Assad's government and the rebels - and ISIS. For the majority none of these are attractive options, and yet all will employ all manner of methods to conscript the population. Assad is generally seen as a lesser-evil at best (much like with Western governments softening their stances toward him to keep ISIS down). His government isn't very popular, the clue is in the civil war launched against it.
Whoa, dude, whoa. Good to know that liberalism actually works and the first world doesn't need leftism anymore.
A first world working class person doesn't need to worry about becoming homeless or not earning enough to pay rent or food. Everything is solved.
So now let's import the third world here for some reason…
What I'm saying is Rojava need to consider doing what the chinese communists did when Japan invaded China, which was allying themselves with the nationalists until they defeated the japs. Then they can go back to fighting each other for all I care. That being said though, I still disagree a little with the approach Rojava are taking, but this is mostly to my personal beliefs of the most effective way of implementing socialism. I may disagree with them but I don't dislike them, I consider myself of the least sectarian people that post here.
that's largely happening already, to a similar extent as it did in the Chinese Civil War. The Kurds and SAA collaborated when the t*rks invaded Afrin for example. And the 'alliance' between KMT and CPCh during the Japanese invasion was more of a patchy ceasefire, the maneuvering continued all the way through the war.
More like "occasional battle"
this is why we need feminism
I see, speaking of did anything come out of the supposed alliance talks that were going to happen recently between Assad and Rojava? Haven't heard anything about that since.
that was the implication, yes
no clue, I'm not so up-to-date on the Rojava question. it's an overhyped tiny speck on the map, disproportionally visible due to cheking all the boxes and the decades-long lack of an international cause celebre for libsocs
>the perfect revolutionary subject are the people and (mostly) their impostors who've turned tail and ran from literal revolution
Wow OP, that's some fantastic military analysis you've got going there.
Legally admitting millions of economic migrantsrefugees while redirecting humanitarian aid funds from the Mideast to welfare for resettling them in Europe?
Well, then tell me your fantastic analysis.
i agree, the global apocalyptic race war needs to be started sooner rather than later and this is a perfect way to get it started
Migrants as compared to colonists have never formed the nucleus of a revolution, ever, but have instead invariably been used as tools of the powerful to further oppress the downtrodden, before they assimilate into the native culture without a ripple, in two or three generations.
Contrariwise, in Syria, sending dissidents and their family/friends as far away from the country as possible will allow the Ba'athists to further cement their grip on the populace with a deathless genocide, neatly purging undesirables.
As for the global MIC that fanned the flames of conflict and slave diaspora for their own gain, allowing their program to succeed as you advocate will incentivize them to pursue similar undertakings in the future.
based and redpilled
Except when they admit them on mass. Juncker’s latest speech is trying to remove himself from the blame.
Except that many workers support Die Linkie, and socialist unions are still active
A war between 90% of the population vs. 10% of the population results in the 90% winning. Also despite what right-wing propaganda says. Refugees don’t have the numbers to become more numerous than the native populations. Even if they did, they will make up an insignificant number of the military, who holds the real power in western countries.
EU admitting over a million refugees in 2014
OP your plan is shit here’s why. Refugees come from civil wars, and when these wars end they most of them go home. (People are already returning to Syria for example) The few who don’t end up assimilating into the native populations in a few generations.
As long western imperialism continues, people will not go back home. It shows there will be more imperialist wars, therefore more refugees will come.
Lol who do you think formed a huge segment of the US labor movement in the 19th century dumbass? The reason they ‘assimilated’ is because the socialist organizers didn’t realize they were competing for recruitment with whiteness, by which various European ‘races’ such as the Irish and Italians could become part of the dominant ‘race’.
The immigrants that were left after the labor movement halted their influx, by imposing harsh quota limits just like we should now.
No, it's because idpol isn't a viable way to form lasting political blocs, as compared to class.
Didn’t know it was possible to be this confident and this stupid at the same time.
It's a zizek reference faggot.
Idpol is just the icing on top, the primary unifying force of both parties' actual bases are their attitudes toward classcuckoldry (fawning vs. apologetic).
I thought dialectics was about paying attention to change? 2014 was four years ago, EU policy changed a lot since.
How should "we" enforce these limits?
Not seeing any policy change here
Same way we did to end the last Gilded Age and thwart the previous crop of robber barons
Hence the joke answer, FAS autist
thats a weird fucking analysis of a concept tho. I don't think that liberals themselves "are the problem" it's just the democratic party being bourgeois n shit. It's simply normie normalfags that don't know better, they don't know what the dem party really does outside the country.
A family try and cross the border. What do?
Refugees are proletariat and we need to be on their side.
The european union has been trying to shoo off refugees by a while now, one has to remember that 1 they already pay t*rkey to "not open the gates" 2 frontex is already a thing and the fact is that the eu does not "like immigrants" it's that it wants to control the faucet completely, to open it just enough that there is some cheap labor. The people that think that "closing borders" will solve this crisis in my opinion do not understand the phenomenon, which has three main problems.
The first is that as long as at least one EU country will be at least marginally viable for migrations people will continue to do it, there are entire african countries that have a significant income from immigrants that send money back to home, and life quality in africa and middle east is so poor compared to european countries that I believe a lot of people would try to cross borders even with hard line policies.
The second problem is that people who call for closed borders do not understand the economical impact of immigration. Yes, there are porkies who greatly benefit from cheap immigrant labor, but some are hurt: more poor people that erode job quality-→more poverty and unemployement-→less sales. This is why porkies are not ALL for immigration.
The third point is that porkies that benefit from immigrants do NOT benefit from them being integrated for real; on the contrary, they have to be as marginalized as possible to make the cheap labour benefits real.
Closing borders ironically would make the crisis even stronger I think, because it would set the background for porkies trying to exploit even more the illegal migrants. This is a fact, for example in my country (Italy) the government has not really resolved shit, niggers still sell shitty trinkets on the street or work in vegetable fields in inhuman conditions, and I truly believe they will continue, as the government will be unable to stop immigration in my opinion (the boats they didn't accept were big smokescreens tho).
In the end to solve the crisis african/ME countries should get on the level of at least "developing" nations, but in the framework of capitalist nation states this is impossible and just a mind exercise, as it is the idea of solving the friction between migrants and natives in the european states, where different porkies want different things.
depends on the individual but for the most part yes.
Crack down hard on employers that exploit illegals, and they won't be able to get jobs. No pull factor, no illegals.
3rd-worlders are proletariat, refugees are lumpen. There is zero benefit and countless downsides to hosting them in high-PPP 1st-world nations.
Cute, not terribly convincing.
No shit. Maybe decreasing imperialist fuckery and ramping up foreign aid would be easier if the working class weren't taking it in both holes from offshoring and immigration?
The Syria Civil War id dying down. And guess what, refugees are starting to return. Because guess what, they don’t want to be in the west, they wan’t to be home.
Give them 10,000USD if they go back, take pictures of them so no one does this multiple times.
The problem with Immigration is that most of the people who enter are already wealthy when compared to the country they came from. By virtue of them being able to leave. This causes a brain drain in the third world, where people who would normally form an intelligentsia in these countries, and eventually a Bourgeois class leave.This halts the development the development of a Bourgeois class which halts industrialization, and the lack of a national bourgeois makes exploitation by the international bourgeois of these countries much easier.
This is true, but this income is mostly sent to elderly people, who don’t invest it in the development of a national industry in there home countries. Or children who use the money to get a uni degree in Computer Science than move to Cali to work for Google, live preeminently in Cali, and because there entire family is spread out around the globe don’t send any money back. Income that doesn’t lead to the development of industry or industrialization, won’t lead to these countries improving. The only way the third world can improve is if they industrialize, which brain drain to the third world hurts. Take all the immigrants working in silicone valley, if they instead worked in there native countries and started business this would lead to the development of capitalism and industry in the third world, which would allow these countries to finally progress out of feudalism.
you distorted my opinion. My point is that under capitalism this crisis is almost unsolvable. The only way to end it would be hard line border policy, which would be opposed by the progressive porkiesthat would try anything to not allow it. After all everything about these "immigration issues" are completely framed in capitalist terms and "solving" this problem under capitalism wolud mean only that one porky won over the other.
combating offshoring under capitalism only means 30s economic policies. There is no way out of this hole if not by socialising the means of productions. But you seem more interested in dividing the working class by supporting populist capitalist nation-state policies… sad.
I think it is sometimes overvalued how much possibilities have the migrants "just because they left": one has to take in account that families may spend their life time savings to send one young to the western countries. Of course slum denizens will never have even a glimpse of a chance to go away, but I think, based I admit on these conjectures and some people I've known, that migrants come out of fairly different social strata, and not exclusevly from middle class or bourg. And the third world wouldn't improve even if these people were unable to leave, these countries are forced by the world economy in power relations that force them to bend to the will of the capital of developed nations; this is mainly obtained through debt that they have to contract (with the world bank I suppose mostly) to attract foreign capital. For these country it is imossible to develop because of the inherently aggressive and imperialistic nature of the capitalist system that dominates worldwide.
They don't go back. What do?
You really think 30s economic policies (hint: they caused a famous war) would solve the problem of falling rates of profit and national dabts/economic crisis? lmao
dude are you even a fucking socialist? Sage for bait. Strong nation states produce "3rd world free of imperialism and developing rapidly" and "powerful labor unions subsuming functions of the state"? Care to explain how this not happened in for example, 40s Brazil? do you even know what "populism" refers to?
oh shit forgot to sage well too late
Socialists should unironicaly shrill for 30’seconmic policies. Because the 30s were time while revolution would be much easier than today.
That money wouldbe better spend on investing on busness in there home country because that would advance the dialectics in there home country, and the family would make some rent making them better off where the money would go down a black hole if those people went to the west. The exception is students who go back to there home countries and star a business, thus allowing there home country to have a national bourgeois and industrialize.
The power of the world economy is evaporating though. For example America is isolating it’s self behind a wall of tariffs, while China is building roads throughout Asia and Africa. There is no time better than now for third world countries to develop a national bourgeois.
Put them in a van that heads towards there home, and drop them off there.
It would make it worst in the first world, making revolution easier there. However in the third world the abandonment of the international bourgeois would force these countries to develop a national bourgeois which would allow these countries to develop a fully capitalist economy, which would make revolution in the third world easier there as well.
Not a problem for nuclear superpowers
…is a somewhat odd case, in that rather than unions assuming functions of the state, the state captured the unions. Given this initially happened during a period of dictatorship in which strikes were banned, its resemblance to various fascist and ML regimes' labor policy is far from coincidental. In combination with this, whenever rightist dictatorship was removed by democratic revolution, autarkic policies were usually relaxed (note that I'm not an isolationist on principle, as I see nothing wrong with open borders between nations at relatively similar levels of economic and legal development. But Brazil is well-suited to autarky, owing to its size, natural resources, and population.), maintaining significant pressure against organic labor organization.
maybe the 20s or the 40s I'd say, the 30s were a point of complete reactions by superpowers.
the structural problems of the thirld world in my opinion cannot be solved by whatever bottom up solution in a capitalist framework. In this type of structure you absolutely have to attract foreign capital. It's what china has done so I'm not just saying this to spout neolib rethoric: in fact, while countries that attract foreign industries can develop, those who don't are forever stuck by national debt because of the other countries imperialism. Make no mistake I am not defending neoliberalism or global capital; my point is that it's just two names for the same poison. America imposing tariffs in china in my opinion is not a sign of "america isolating" for example, it's exactly the contrary: america wants to do whatever they want and china is in the way. This is why I think democraps, which got best integrated in the US machine after obongo, want to do war with russia: both dems and the military see russia as a bigger threat to imperialistic hunger in the ME, which they consider essential, and I'd say they think they have not spread "enough". So protectionism is rather "global market 2: return of the nationalist bourg" than anything else really.
sorry but I believe this is naive
from what I remember, after vargas took power, till 45 unions were state unions fascism style, which means not really unions. And going by memory I remember Brazile even after Vargas being a shit state exploited by first world powers and with frail unions and socialist movements ecc. And this I would say has happened many times. States having to repress social unrest because they chose the road of national porky without having the tools to build a preying "protectionist-imperialist" foundation. But with global market comes social unrest ecc. too. So in my opinion there is no other real position that that of indifference to the openness of the market, it's just a game for porkies.
Sage because I have a high fever and I might be incoherent.
They don't want to get in that van. What do?
if you are German, you are a traitor to your people.
Who are you talking to?
The GreatDepression was the closet time Communists came to taking over America. CNT-FAI almost took over Spain. And the French Communist Party was much stronger than in this time.
Capitalism must come before Socialism, this is how dialectics work.
How did Europe and America industrialize? They did it without foreign capital.
A return of the national bourgeois is not only good, but nessicary to allow the first world to fully develop into capitalism. The international bourgeois meanwhile is a force of imperialism, which is a regressive force that causes stagnation, not development.
Hello, Zig Forums.
in america communism was always a questionable presence, even during the great depression. And the spanish war is really the litmus paper for how tight and spread was the far right in the 30s: the falangist got foreign help that was unquestionably superior to that received by the republic.
The 3rd world countries are already framed in the global capital scheme hence they are basically capitalist.
But here's the problem. Europe and america industrialized in a phase where imperial capitalism wasn't fully developed so they could do it with profit from expanding their empires. Not a coincidence that the first industrialized nation was britain, that could absorb raw materials from overseas and discharge large amount of products in the colonies, preventing overproduction. Economic imperialism, or at least the possibility of expansion in foreign markets or in "undeveloped" territories was key in western developement.
My point is exactly that the idea that national bourgeois are not imperialist is a mere illusion and no bourgeois mechanic will ever help the socialist cause. There is no developement in either of the two, and thinking the national bourg doesn't have interest in imperialism is naive at best. Isn't it strange that at the height of chauvinism, protectionism and national cohesion before WW1 trade also expanded and imperialism became far more aggressive and exploitative? The fact is: whatever the bourgeoise choose, we are the losers.
Don't forget burger Stalin
I don't get it. This has nothing to do with my post.
That's weird, searching for that post gives me no results. And the way it's written doesn't really sound like posters from that subreddit.
Almost like it's fake.
But that's impossible. Fascists would never do something like that.
I do consider you a credible authority on all things reddit
First worlders are not 90% of the working class. And Die Linke is not a communist party, they are simply social democrats.
Not enough refugees to overthrow the system? Just let more in! The third world outnumbers the first world easily. This is how third-worldism works inside the belly of the beast!
In the first world they are. Also Die Linkie is made by former East German Officials, and ran by communists.
Moving in enough refugees into the first world so they became the majority is logistically impossible.
Greetings from Zig Forums implying or even directly stating huey was a fascist is a common line from burger liberals, especially card carrying democrats
If this was actually the case though, why was the founder of the black panthers named after him?
Back to >>>/mao/
To remind people that sometimes people do silly things.
Communism is just a word, and in this world we need something that’s better tuned to it and preferably without the baggage. Where informed people see Star Trackian future, the unwashed only see what they always see … the path to bright future lays in universal education. That’s why the reaction tried to dismantle it as first course of action
HUEY NEWTON: Ah, yes, my father was impressed with Huey P. Long even though, at the time in the South, Blacks couldn't vote, that, ah, Huey P. Long was, ah, ah, created the first Black, ah, ah, hospital and medical school. And, ah, even though, ah, Huey P. Long, ah, gave the pitch to the, ah, the White races that, ah, ah, they needed a Black, ah, medical school and hospital because, ah, he didn't want White women seeing Black men nude and so forth, my father thought he was, my father thought Huey P. Long was using tricks in order to, ah, improve the, ah, the, ah, situation for Blacks at the time.
And why would he think such a thing?