Criticisms of the left from an American populist point of view

The left should ally with libertarians on states rights issues and should ally with the paleo-conservative right on issues related to the nationalization of social media and the destruction of social media monopolies.

The left tends to support neoliberal immigration policies. This does not help workers. It exploits both Americans and immigrants.

The term "left" from a contemporary point of view represents identity politics at best and something completely foreign at it's worst.

Anarchists destroying small businesses or kicking over trash cans doesn't make the average working man sympathetic to socialism. It's simply seen as thugs destroying the places where people like to shop.

If you want to gain people's support you should actually do something for your community. Maybe that could be picking up trash, from your local park, or volunteering for charity.

Idpol has killed the left.

Attached: 1495997870582.png (688x369, 31.52K)

Other urls found in this thread:

So basically the left should… adopt all the right-wing positions and instead of agitating, it should go pick up garbage in parks. Methinks this advice is not in good faith muchacho

I wouldn't even use that word, "realpolitik" is more accurate. If anyone is in favor of even one plank in your platform's agenda? Work with them on that. If they oppose you on other issues? Oppose them on those issues. It's how big boys do politics and get things done, as opposed to whiny obstructionist mental midgets.

Attached: gtfu.jpg (350x466, 37.6K)

ftfy, that's what the actual Burgergoblin criticism of the left is that I have to listen to and read every day in this miserable fucking cesspool

Ain't that the fucking truth.

Autonomy from hierarchical power structures? Common ownership of services? Destruction of monopolies? Opposition to commodification of work? None of those are right-wing positions.

But I guess they are [red tribe] positions, so you oppose them due to [blue tribe] loyalty. Because who you are is more important to you than principles, if you ever had any. We call that idpol, and it is indeed killing any legitimacy the left has.

Well, now we know how completely unfamiliar with anarchist theory you are. Now, what are you advocating?

Libertarianism is a fancy word for neoliberal

Are you meaning to say that the passage you quoted contradicts anarchist theory? If not, what is your problem with it?

Libertarians want to eliminate governments. Neoliberals want to privatize them. Those are profoundly different positions.

Anarchists take part in charity such as Food not Bombs and works such as pothole repair or public clinics more than most other sects. Not knowing this is indicative of swallowing media blindly and believing that breaking some porkies window somehow excludes all other action.
Lolberts want to preserve the state to protect property, what the ancaps describe is a bourgeois state by either the Marxist or Anarchist perspective. The only things to side with the lolberts on would be shit like opposition to NSA shenanigans, but even then lolberts primarily stick to the ineffective electoral approach which is a tomb for socialist movements.

I agree with you. You’re going to have a difficult to time convincing the socialists larping as anarchists here (or even worse ancoms) to change any of that. I still hear people on leftpol arguing for “muh strikes” as the answer to every problem the left has.

The only way to eliminate government is a successful communist revolution.

So you are in fact agreeing that the passage in question is consistent with anarchist praxis. So, allow me to ask again, what is your problem with it?

Wait, are talking about actual libertarians or American lolberts?

Attached: 8ab4f4652a259b6d8942e98d2ad263697379c44826457a2507a8f0106fc5c526.jpg (600x620, 54.36K)

What do you think those two words mean?

Well I was talking about a political position, not some rando loons acting as weekmen of it, yes.

But even in a weekman state, lolberts are significantly different from neolibs. Where a lolbert wants to abolish Department of Roads because it's literally communism, a neoliberal will argue that it's inefficient and road building needs to be outsourced to private companies (but still paid for with government money, of course).

This guy knows what he's talking about. We can't just blame bourgeois propaganda for our shit image. The left needs to take a good hard look at itself. I've been working inside of the GOP for a couple months now and it's insane how much conservatives hate the neoliberal establishment (and will even share my hatred of land lords, bankers, etc.). It's a huge resource to be tapped into, but we have to get out of the armchairs first.

Furthermore, we should attach ourselves to figures like the Founding Fathers and claim them as our ideological forefathers (there is no way they would approve of what this shit has become), and explain how capitalism and profits *force* these massive corporations to lobby the government to violate our constitutional rights left and right. Explain to them that as long as there is private property that our god-given rights are being deprived of. What good is the 1st and 2nd amendment if a private property owner can strip you of both whilst you are on his property? Explain that the society that the founders envisioned is impossible with capitalism, and only through socialism can we have these rights for real, and not just on paper.


tbh, leftists who push idpol should be immediately be forced to self criticize or should be removed from the organization. We have to purge the living fuck out of this shit from our movement and welcoming conservatives is a good first step.

Is that the GOP position on the latter of property?


Clearly not, they aren't a socialist party. Obviously you knew that and asked a loaded question.
I'm not advocating we try to flip the GOP, I'm saying we need to talk to conservatives and stop trying to appeal to Bernie Sanders style liberals. The appeal to liberals has been such a massive failure.

So what are you doing in the GOP?

We can use the GOP as a resource to reach out to conservatives and try to rebrand ourselves as something other than queers with multi colored hair, or some kind of authoritarians. We need to fix people's image of us, and it's not 100% of the bourgeoisie's propaganda to blame, the left has a hand in it too.

What does that mean?

Use their platform to push my left wing agenda. For example, the campaign I am chair of has a large focus on issues regarding housing in my district. So what do I do? I get the candidate to support housing cooperatives because they are a good, non bureaucratic way to lower rents and give tenants some control and a sense of ownership. I get to knock doors and talk to people about this, I get money to print fliers that are anti-landlord. Hell I get to go on a college campus sometime this week and hand out anti-landlord literature, with the blessing of the young republicans. I am using them as a megaphone to get my left wing voice heard, even if by a few people.

Read above.

Aren't your litterature, speechs, etc., reviewed by people from the GOP, to ensure they're in line with GOP's positions on the topic?

I'm not . My problem is the assumption that property destruction and community work are mutually exclusive activities, as implied in the OP. I'd wager that the anarchist antifags that go smashie smashie at protests are also the same people who show up to feed people or fix shit on their own time and dime. Why some trashcan getting knocked over is reported on more than such community service by the liberal media should be obvious to everyone by now.

The only person reviewing it is the candidate, it's not my responsibility. Given they pay for the fliers I would guarantee you someone looks at them, I just don't know who. So as a natural result I don't care or know tbh. Pic related is a very rough draft of my most recent fliers I will be distributing on campus.
Clearly this kind of shit only goes so far, but it's a start.

Attached: fuck landlords.svg.png (1056x816, 93.8K)

Do you have anything that is not a draft?

Not on this machine sadly. Sorry comrade

This meant to go to

literally just a dogwhistle for discrimination against minorities
Paleoconservatives want this? I figured they'd just want to destroy new media. Even if they wanted to nationalize it, they'd have wildly different intents than we do.

No, we tend to support policies that take care of immigrants, no the policies that cause people to emigrate from their home (war and shitty trade policies).
Yeah but since they're already here we shouldn't shit on them. There's no good reason for a left winger to support deportation and shit, which is what the right wing gets off on.

Not really. It doesn't mean much of anything to the mainstream, just like any other political word. At this point it's mostly just a label you can throw at someone to own them epic style for your friends to high-five you over.
That's not what those people are trying to do. Damaging small businesses is a tactic designed to put pressure on businesses and draw attention. Knocking over trash cans is a tactic designed to block vehicles during riots.
This is true but PR isn't the point of these things. The media is going to latch onto whatever stupid bullshit they want, regardless of whether it's true or a valid criticism. WebM related.
Usually we do, a la organizing support networks for people who hit financial troubles.
bourgeois af tbhfam

No, it was the state apparatus and its many functions deliberately sabotaging the left that reduced it to its current state.

Attached: muh Starbucks.webm (624x358, 8.75M)

Those are essentially the same thing. Both end with corporations controlling everything.

Not wanting everything to be force fed by the federal government isn't a dog whistle against discrimination.
Yes they do, hence I have to endlessly hear about this "abolish ICE" bullshit.
Idpol is what keeps a muzzle on the left, so long as we don't eradicate ourselves of this cancer we will continue to have a muzzle.

I meant "A dog whistle for discrimination"

Attached: 1368268846206.jpg (562x437, 50.04K)

The federal government enforces private property, the PATRIOT act, education standards (teaching anti communist lies to the youth), but I suppose if you want to strip it of these powers you're racist huh?

The individual states will also enforce property, surveillance programs, and anti-communist propaganda while the ruling class would have cheap unprotected labor to exploit even if the borders were closed and all immigrants deported. There is no reason to waste our time in an alliance with liberals or reactionaries who will sell us out to porky the second our interests diverge.

Why do you call yourself left? You're just another neoliberal faggot.

I unironically feel this way about 90% of the left

Yeah people like him are why I feel
like this towards the left.

Not the same thing as states' rights. People who use "states' rights" as a motto are broadly uninterested in this, and putting these powers in the hands of states instead of The State doesn't address the problem of these powers being in the hands of a state. This is literally putting 2 and 2 together. How fucking stupid do you think other people are?
This is not what I said, but defending ICE against "abolish ICE bullshit" is pro-ICE. Get your head screwed on straight my dude.

Corporations also buy state and local government. Where does this meme come from that there's a difference? People pay less attention to local politics, not more.
You are really fucking stupid if you think this is even a significant minority of the people getting deported.
I don't endorse smashies. I was just explaining why OP was missing the point about their behavior.

Considering you pick your own ethnic group over working class solidarity, your interests diverge from the jump.

wew lad

"the left" doesn't mean anything. Most of you faggots are socdems who want capitalism with red flags at best.

Attached: fd226537d244cf0f5f82c19fe0a5a81d6219976bb2778d0c8ca912effe5361c1.jpg (330x258, 16.5K)

The only one who is talking about ethnicity right now is you. You literally brought it up, immigrants aren't an ethnicity.
You act as if opposing the federal government of the United States is the same as winning a local election/winning over the people of a municipality. I agree governments of all sizes shouldn't enforce this shit, so saying the federal government shouldn't do it is totally valid.

I totally agree and I'm tired of this shit man, it's not that Marxism is "utopian" or that the ideas wouldn't work, it's that the left is just shit. You just have a bunch of faggots complaining about how people are mean to brown people like this faggot who do nothing, maybe people wouldn't be disillusioned if we got something done for once instead of posting anime waifus.

OP your entire analysis is bizarrely non-materialist and you should feel bad about it.

Most young college kids are brought up in idpol, so they're not going to drop it anytime soon. They're mature into adulthood and see as time goes on, though.
The good news is generation Z's biggest interest is a living wage, not abortion/gay marriage. Enough is wasted on the millennials, let them fumble a bit.

33% of federal prisoners are illegals in the United States. 50% of DUI's are also illegals.

Norwegians should control Norway. Canadians should control Canada.Puerto Ricans should control Puerto Rico. Somehow this is a fascist talking point to you people.

Nationality is a spook.

This guy gets it.

Yes they are. Ethnic groups are defined socially. And nobody anywhere is concerned about white immigrants from Europe who are more likely to be educated and more likely to actually take well-paying jobs. The beef is with refugees and economic migrants who are uprooted by capitalist policies. Solving those problems entails stopping the ravages of global capitalism. This is basic shit. Whinging about immigrants is a strong tell that you're not one of us.
>I agree governments of all sizes shouldn't enforce this shit, so saying the federal government shouldn't do it [and instead state government should] is totally valid a direct contradiction lmao.

Since when did supporting conservative (liberal) policies count as getting something done?

They're called "illegals" for a reason. They're imprisoned because they're being deported for being in the country, not for murdering and raping. The crime rate among "illegals" is lower than among citizens.

Attached: 1435950448205.jpg (580x679, 57.81K)

Attached: IMG_20170813_164210.jpg (564x558, 18.1K)

Now this faggot has made himself king and has decreed that anyone who isn't for unlimited immigration isn't "one of us", this philistine attitude is why people hate us.
I would say getting the GOP to pay for anti-landlord fliers and letting me talk on college campuses is probably more than you do, just my guess. If anything your philistine virtue signalling about immigrants is what repels people away from us.

Is there any proof that "allying" with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum ever worked?

No one wants to sit here and play this holier than thou bullshit. No one likes being talked down to and anytime I see the manarchist poster come around he's only spewing neoliberal talking points with some red paint on them, and talking down to everyone else.

Ronald Reagan, Mr. Neoconservative trickledown economics, gave the illegals in California citizenship. For free. And you think you're left, lol. You would rather throw your own people under the bus to help immigrants who don't follow the law. Go ahead and call me a bootlicker, I don't people illegal coming into my country and driving drunk/starting gang wars. Sue me.

Good, good, let the neoliberal talking head on the TV tell you what to think. Definitely don't do your own research.

Speak it brother

Proletarians should, and much more importantly: will control the world.

You started that you faggot

Then don't stand your ground on stupid opinions like "don't abolish ICE" or blatantly contradictory ones like "states having this power is bad so let's take it from one part of the state and give it to another."
Neoliberalism is economic policy, not a political ideology. Perhaps you're thinking of progressive liberals or social democrats? Neoliberalism is where you try to solve sociopolitical problems by deregulation and deference to business and the market.

I don't think you know what this word means either.
damn nigga that's a good joke
Shit, you must be on your way to membership on the Intellectual Dark Web™
wow you sure showed me
OK this point is serious so let me be as clear as possible:
If you're attracting people to the idea that immigrants are the problem rather than capitalism, then you're not attracting people to the left.

t. armchair socialist
I rest my case about this cuck. Pic related.
Amazing that he defends smashies tipping over trash cans yet talks shit about someone actually handing out literature because I don't suck brown dick like he does

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (761x800, 83.43K)

Damn I didn't know that it was my job to define myself as the exact opposite of people I disagree with. Shit, Reagan though worker ownership was good. I guess that's not left either.
Immigrants are as much "my people" as anybody else.
Wow yeah, the law of the land is totally the arbiter of what radicals should value. It's not like that's completely the opposite of how this works or anything. It's not like the entire point of communism is to abolish the present state of things, is it?
Well I guess since you predicted my opinion you beat me. Damn, what a clever trick. If only my standards for winning an argument was knowing what the other person was going to say and not, like, having a response to it other than that.
You got any evidence to back that up then?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (850x400, 349.17K)

I'm sorry not everyone wants to support your Reaganite immigration policies.

I was calling you a socdem fam. Self-awareness is always nice I suppose.

It's a fascist talking point because it's calling for class collaboration among national lines, which is ultimately what fascism is. This is directly opposed to the communist goal of worker unification regardless of spooks.

Attached: DibDFTKWAAsS2Xr.jpeg (1139x600, 30.46K)

immigrants are but one tool capitalists use. California gets too many immigrants, now there's not enough homes. Rent goes up. New houses that are built are made for rich silicon valley types. So upperclass immigrants come in and big mansions are constructed, meanwhile working class immigrants come in and there's not enough smaller homes, so shit gets real expensive.

You don't have to be afraid of economics, you can understand it and show others how capitalists use markets to exploit others.

Anyone who says this is a liar. I identify with Italians more than I identify with the French. I definitely identify with other Italians more than the Japanese.


Except I'm not a socdem, I haven't said anything in support of social democracy.
The USSR did this all of the time, I suppose Lenin was a fascist for saying that nations have a right to self determination.

Yeah dude let's support the reactionary capitalist state in exchange for future concessions. No one has ever tried to do this before.

Attached: 190px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-1721,_Gregor_Strasser_crop.jpg (190x253, 13.37K)

He's a virtue signalling faggot, the more he can suck up to the immigrants the better he thinks he looks

Who the fuck is that?

Explaining =/= defending.
Shit, this dude's passing around copies of Mein Kampf. I better not talk shit because he's doing real activism. Doesn't matter what the activism is for.

Bullshit. There are plenty of homes. Real estate is run by cartels who control artificial scarcity to make money on the margins. How little do you actually understand about the economy dude?
This can happen locally (gentrification) forcing people to move out of areas where there were already living spaces. Working class people don't "come in" to areas with housing they can't afford. What are you talking about?
Maybe you should try sometime. :^)
Wow, it sure is easy to be right when the only possible alternative is to also be right but in denial about it.
That's pretty fucking sad.

You haven't said anything in support of anything except social conservatism, so calling you a socdem is generous fam.
Intentionally or not, Lenin did effectively pioneer the model for red fascism, so that's probably not the best argument to make.

Attached: bordiga gtfo.jpg (900x900 10.85 KB, 37.85K)


Holy fuck Lenin himself isn't good enough for this guy, literally everyone that isn't him is a fascist and you can't be holy enough for him.
If I'm espousing social conservatism, then calling me a socdem is nonsensical.

You've claimed to work in a liberal party and have espoused reformist positions as $$$doing something$$$. A rose by any other name would be just as counter-revolutionary.
The USSR was counter-revolutionary for most of it's existence and those instances of it pushing class collaboration or electoralism, such as Spanish Civil War or hamstringing black unions in burgerland, were disgraceful.
I'm not a fan of Lenin, but it would be false to claim that he advocated for unity with national bourgeoisie over the international proletariat.

Attached: 79492b0a87f841b42de2bfddfcfe0b378feb967a.jpg (709x315, 32.89K)

Multiracialism is not a good thing for the native working class. The current elite capitalists are advocating it constantly.
Get back in time, grab Karl Marx and send him to live in an arab/black area for a month, and even he would recognize the importance of borders. Socialists need to drop anti racism and make sure that those pro diversity celebs, corporations and bankers have their wealth confiscated and are stripped of power.

As if Lenin is the gold standard.
No, bitch. You're defending your model on the grounds that Lenin did it and I'm countering that Lenin's model turned out to be effective at getting autocrats into power under the guise of communism.
Not really. Social democracy is economic policy ameliorating poverty. Social conservatism is social policy that disadvantages historically disadvantaged groups. They don't contradict in a general sense, just on particular issues like whether social programs should help racial minorities (enter: you).

How are immigrants to blame for this?
Marx wasn't MLK you retard. He was less racist than, like, Bakunin, but that's not saying much. He's not the Prophet Marxhammed, Peace Be Upon Him. He just did a good job critiquing political economy.
Sounds like a very effective stragegy to me.

Attached: Leninism.jpg (500x1103, 59.48K)

Attached: c9510719cd5fa6bb9a07c18bd35b7cd78b9da288534a8c187ec9f6123f8a4324.jpg (215x234, 10.7K)

Plenty of africans and arabs, pretending to be refugees, just to enter and get free gibs, while demanding affirmative action, special treatment and hate speech laws to protect them from honest criticism. Of course there's that minority of legit immigrants that do want work, while respecting the traditions and rules of the welcoming country, but that number is low.
You can also add racial conflicts, culture clashes, crime statistics etc. The melting pot will never be the solution to solve racial conflict, aside from making it bigger.

In regards to Marx, yes, he didn't display anti racism or shared his views on race, but he was an internationalist that wanted a stateless society. "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. The working men have no country. "-Marx
He never got to experience today's multiracialism, he was an ethnic jew living safely among white europeans. His critiques of capitalism are spot on, but his ignorance of nationalism, state and borders are his biggest mistakes.

I find this to be exaggerated, but otherwise agree.
Things like immigration might not be bad inherently (whatever that means exactly) but capitalism poisons everything it touches.

One of Marx's most prescient predictions in the manifesto is the idea that production and consumption would come to assume a cosmopolitan character in every country.

Of course Marx would see the weapons the bourgeoisie used to "fell feudalism to the ground" be turned back around on them by an international proletarian movement. Still waiting on that…

Here's a criticism for ya: stop thinking as politics as the process of tricking/winning over various interest groups of working people with 'policies' if you win an election. Conceive of socialism as the specific abolition of capitalist class relations, and then form organizations (parties) to do just that, which function as organizations of political, economic and social power separate from the bourgeois state. Positions on social issues, immigration, identity, etc. all flow from this cause, and will probably still be up for debate even in an entirely communist society.

This is what I mean when I talk about how capitalists just LOVE idpol and immigrants. This faggot brags about being smarter than blue collar working class people, brags about living in the 7th wealthiest zip code, an all white area. So he gets to tell you stupid prole fucks to just accept unlimited immigrants, along with tranny politics and corporate decided wages. Still think you're left if you support immigration?

Attached: 7th close up.PNG (631x522 6.39 KB, 47.87K)

Capitalism contains contradictions, and different groups of capitalists will have different ideas and objectives.

– Karl "Big Daddy Carbuncle" Marx

"I can offload my hypocrisy by pointing at Marx"


There was a sea change in the nature of military power that was just beginning to occur when Marx died. Industrialized warfare was a new concept, and the American Civil War and the Opium Wars only offered the tiniest glimpse into the spectacular complexity of the theater of war that was being born. Rifles, muskets, shot, and shell would be of little use in the twentieth century where submarines, aircraft, machine guns, mustard gas, and bombs that wipe out whole cities take to the battlefield. Marxist theory has a massive blindspot when it comes to military theory. It is something that we should rectify.

Can you find me some quotes from Marx on immigration

This thread is cancer.

I'm not gonna let you try to take me down some rabbit hole about "hurr muh theory". Fact is that immigrants are hostile to the host population, and compete with the host population, especially the working class. The ruling class like immigrants because immigrants lower wages and prevent workers from organizing successfully.

The whole "citizen of the world" shtick is what bourgeois faggots and God's chosen people like. Fuck off, borders are real.

This is so backwards I don't even know where to begin. Immigrants don't have the power to do shit, it's porky who is exploiting them. You are basically shitting on an oppressed class instead of joining with them against the real enemy.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (850x400, 80.13K)

If a thing has no physical reality, then that means that it exists only in your imagination. Things that exist only in your imagination are not real, you fucking schizo.

Attached: RedPillIsSchizophrenia.png (1631x250, 117.77K)

I want the source for that quote. It is too good to be true.

Because you can't bitch

Attached: 1505600859941.png (447x449, 584.04K)

I would distinguish between the primary form of migration under capitalism, mass economic immigration (which occurs between economically/regulatorily disparate areas, in quantities as large as possible), and normal immigration done purely out of personal preference between areas in economic/regulatory harmony.

Riddle me this: Why do you want mass economic immigration? It can't help 3rd-world poverty (it actually harms it), it doesn't help 1st-world labor (it's an infinite source of scabs and idpol), hosting refugees in high-PPP countries is a lethally inefficient diversion of aid money that incentivizes military adventurism, and even remittances are a drop in the bucket.

Don't pretend it "can't be prevented", nearly all mass economic immigrants in both Europe and the US are legal, and even among illegal aliens, most arrive legally and overstay after "vanishing from the system". The most effective answer to eliminating illegal aliens is by harshly penalizing illegal employers and their customers, as without pull factors, there would be no perverse incentive to come here. Be honest, what is the point?

Attached: Immigration_World_Poverty_and_Gumballs_Updated_2010.webm (854x480, 7.9M)

How many tabs of acid did it take to come to that conclusion?

For fucks sake take off the ancom flag and put on the rose.
It's not what we want, it's a fact of modern capitalism that "the left" has no ability to effect. We can either organize with immigrants, like we would all other workers, into a militant working class movement or we can pursue electoral reform and watch as the candidates capitulate to capital and fail miserably in keeping capitalism comfy.

Attached: spooked.jpg (905x942, 83.96K)

If you're a nationalist you are a idpoler by definition, not that this is necessarily a good or bad thing really but you should be more self aware of your own positions

Attached: Sesshōmaru.png (852x479, 357.28K)

Attached: Percent-of-Labor-Force-in-Unions2.png (747x477 49.81 KB, 72.48K)

Warping the class struggle into electoralism instead of class action dampens revolution far more than the threat of deregulation.
We certainly didn't, as those who did are long dead and not the socialists of their era to boot. The socialists of the time were disproportionately immigrants and understood workers of the world uniting meant an international stance on class action.
Not with our current situation of maybe 10k socialists with no powerful organizations, and even if we could it would be attacking a symptom of capitalism as opposed to attacking it directly. The fact is that every single immigrant could be expelled from burgerland with the borders closed and porky would still be able to maintain capitalism through with all the bullshit jobs, automation, and ubi. Rather than chasing such electoral reform that ends up evaporating, we should build the international workers movement into something that can challenge capitalism instead of becoming part of its left wing.
Working class unity and the rejection of electoralism is anarchist communism, if you consider that neoliberal directed defeatism then you need to change your flag before reading a book. I'll even give you a short one.
We largely don't have that free of movement of labor and even those suckers are workers who need to be organized into the real movement.

Why not both? As the current state reigns in capital tighter and tighter, labor is made free to construct a parallel system beneath it.
I imagine that would change if powerful unions winning goodwill through constant victories for members came to dominate everyday political, economic, and social life again.
How? Demand for labor would skyrocket, supply would plummet, porky would have no oxygen supply as the inexorable force of organized pressed upon them. Neoliberalism was the sole option for the power of unions collapsing in the 1970s.
Meme detected, "automation" (actually increased efficiency) has never had any effect on employment, due to Jevons' Paradox:
WEW. Like the completely ephemeral political affiliation of immigrants before they're assimilated in a generation or two?

Perhaps, but this still doesn't contradict the claim that the former is bad praxis while the latter is a good one, which to me appears to be all OP was going for.

Eh, that's a thought-terminating cliche aimed to convince you that affirming an obviously true factual statement or an obviously good leftist position makes you secretly a Very Bad Person (because some Very Bad Persons apparently used it once, and that group association, in a classic idpol fashion, is more important than consistency or accuracy).
Power centralization IS a bad thing.

They're still workers first and foremost, and however you classify what separates them from natives, it remains a division.
And for the record, I fully agree that the we should be less about welcoming migrants and more about making sure nobody ever needs to migrate. But the moment you become unwelcoming to your fellow workers, yeah, something breaks.

Law is a spook.
(Unfortunately there's probably a need for me to note that this does not exonerate smashies. Destroying public infrastructure is still bad for reasons unrelated to law.)

Well I don't like people driving drunk and starting gang wars, regardless of their origins. But unfortunately nobody does anything about those, because one part of the current political divide thinks every migrant is a gang member, while the other thinks calls to eliminate gang violence are a racist dogwhistle.

Idpol. Idpol all the way.

That is not how the state works. Besides, I honestly do not know how you can see such a trend happening in recent history. If anything, states have been facilitating the free flow of capital to an extraordinary extent in the last few decades.

Good will does not political power make. I suspect that you may be suffering from a touch of idealism.

No, it wouldn't. This isn't the 14th century where bosses are restricted by geography to only the local labor pool. Every job that could not be outsourced would be automated. The resulting death spiral of a shrinking consumer base and shrinking production would lead to poverty that would offset any short-term bump in wages.

The inevitable end of the post-war boom along with the energy crisis necessitated neoliberalism.

Automation has a negative effect on the generation of surplus value thus driving down the rate of profit. Economics of scale can mitigate the effect for the largest producers but only insofar as the consumer base is able to purchase the increased output. The current consumer class is financially taxed to its limits and then some. Economics of scale cannot cover up this contradiction any longer.

Like it matters which of the two bourgeois parties people vote for.

Attached: dontvoteitonlyencourages.jpg (550x413, 76.05K)

The neolib/neocon era? Maybe we should shut that down, and get things back on track.
If you have the mass of the people on your side, especially under a type of organization built on direct economic and political action, you have power.
If that could've happened, it would've 300 years ago, when "automation" at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution increased labor efficiency 10x in a generation, rendering 90% of workers superfluous. It would've happened again 100 years ago when tariffs and migrant quotas pushed by unions terminated the Gilded Age. And it would be happening right now, with American productivity tripling in the last 50 years. It never did, the workweek hasn't even shrunk, aside from when unionists fought and died for it. Seriously, read the article I linked, automation reducing the laborforce can't happen under capitalism, the infinite growth of demand will never let it.
Yup, great, capital weakened, labor strengthened, and?
That's not how capitalism functions with fiat currency. Learn MMT, money is just a measure of account, credit is generated on demand, all that matters is the material resources of the system as a whole.
Not how it works, "automation" generates more jobs than it destroys, in both large and small businesses. Again, read the article.
I don't just mean voting, but any conscious differentiation from the rest of the population. Mass economic immigration can win you nothing long term, while doing enormous damage every year it continues unabated.