Elections in the Netherlands [Archive]

View Full Version : Elections in the Netherlands

9th June 2010, 20:43

The definitive prognosis just came in:

PvdA (labour): 31 (down from 33)
VVD (liberals): 31 (up from 21)
PVV (Wilders' party): 22 (up from 9)
CDA (christian-democrats): 21 (down from 41)
SP (Socialist Party): 16 (down from 25)
GroenLinks (GreenLeft): 11 (up from 7)
ChristenUnie (Christian Union): 5 (down from 6)
D'66 (Democrats '66): 10 (up from 3)
Partij voor de Dieren (Party for Animals): 1 (down from 2)
Staatskundig Gereformeerde Partij (Reformed Political Party): 2 (stable)
Trots op Nederland (Proud on the Netherlands): 0 (down from 1, Rita Verdonk was in parliament as "list Rita Verdonk" as she splitted from the liberals after the last elections).

It can vary still though as the votes are counted.

The only possible coalition I see happening is PvdA-VVD-CDA which has 83 out of 150 seats.

VVD-CDA-PVV, which was speculated in the media, is not happening as it just has 74 seats.

ed miliband

9th June 2010, 20:50

Was Wilders expecting to do better? I heard some people suggesting his party could come out on top...

The SP seems to have taken a bit of a bashing, although not awfully so.

9th June 2010, 20:59

Was Wilders expecting to do better? I heard some people suggesting his party could come out on top...

The SP seems to have taken a bit of a bashing, although not awfully so.

Wilders stood high in the polls for some months, but more recently the capitalists and their media outlets thought it would not serve their interests after all so you saw a steady stream of negative media building up around the PVV. This was reflected in the polls over the last period which saw him dropping bit by bit. He did recover though somewhat as his lowest point has been 18 I think.

As for the SP, it too saw a recovery, it stood on 8 seats in its lowest point. It still is a big blow though although the party leadership will undoubtedly focus on Emile Roemer's (the new political leader of the party) "good leadership abilities" that somehow caused this "victory".

The liberals saw a big bashing in the media in the last week, which surprised me a bit and can't really explain. A week ago it stood 38 seats in the polls. It was mostly the media on the rightside of the PvdA (like the Volkskrant) which made such moves.

The christian-democrats have had a historic defeat, even scoring below the last low point in 1994 when they got 23 seats.

Crux

9th June 2010, 21:24

9th June 2010, 21:33

CDU wouldn't join a coalition of VVD-CDA-PVV?

You mean CU? I think that is very unlikely. Also, given the behaviour of the PVV when they became the biggest party in the municipal elections (they only participated in two), in which they refused to go into a coalition, it is to be expected that they'll do the same again. Wilders doesn't want to be in power as he knows that'll cost him votes (although, as he discovered last March, he also loses support when he refuses to hold power. He's having a bit of a problem right now).

9th June 2010, 21:46

Balkenende just announced his resignation as political leader of the christian-democrats.

Finally!:thumbup1:

9th June 2010, 22:31

There is also a possibility btw that we get a VVD-PvdA-GL-D66 coalition, a socalled "purple+". I think that is only really likely if the CDA shuts the door, which I don't think they'll be doing.

Proletarian Ultra

10th June 2010, 02:07

Looks like the Socialists bled votes to GreenLinks and D66 liberals.

How is the SP politically? Thumbs down?

10th June 2010, 02:58

With 96,5% of the votes counted, the more or less final results look like even more shit:

VVD 31
PvdA 30
PVV 24
CDA 21
SP 15
GroenLinks 10
D66 10
ChristenUnie 5
SGP 2
PvdD 2
TON 0

This leaves us with some possible combo's:

VVD-PvdA-CDA = 82
VVD-PVV-CDA = 76
VVD-PvdA-GL-D66 = 81

PVV just might get in government now, although I still think the chance is remote.

Die Neue Zeit

10th June 2010, 05:53

GreenCommunism

10th June 2010, 06:05

Geert wilders sounds strange, he is strongly islamophobic yet he is extremely pro free-market.

10th June 2010, 08:00

As a much more lighthearted comment, could it be that the SP lost support because there was no charismatic or especially avuncular spokesperson at the top verbally committed to overthrowing capitalism and such? ;)

It is true that the loss of Jan Marijnissen has meant a step back in popularity. But he too wasn't a vocal supporter of overthrowing capitalism. He was always pretty vague on the issue and only once in one of his books talked about "Rhineland capitalism" as his model (a welfare state).

Since his leaving from daily politics (although he is still party chairman) the party has moved swiftly to the right. Emile Roemer, the current political leader, has years of experience being a local alderman. Whereas Marijnissen still had a worker appearance, Roemer looks like:

http://www.sp.nl/emileroemer/43_Emile_Roemer.jpg

Yazman

10th June 2010, 08:08

I find it a worrying trend that the PVV is finding such strong support. Q, would you say this reflects attitudes in western europe or is this very much a localised trend in the Netherlands?

10th June 2010, 08:17

I find it a worrying trend that the PVV is finding such strong support. Q, would you say this reflects attitudes in western europe or is this very much a localised trend in the Netherlands?

Both I would say. You see the far right gaining in importance across Europe, like the Vlaams Belang in Flanders, the FPÖ/BZÖ in Austria, the NPD in Germany and the BNP in the UK. With Pim Fortuyn in 2001 the far right made an important breakthrough. After Fortuyn got killed and his List Pim Fortuyn party collapsed, Geert Wilders eventually filled the void. But while the far right has gained strength across Europe, Wilders' party does not have much links to other far right parties (although he does speak and appear on television in several countries).

Sasha

10th June 2010, 11:20

Geert wilders sounds strange, he is strongly islamophobic yet he is extremely pro free-market.

not that strange, style wise he is an rightwing populist like haider, lega nord, danish volksparty etc.
idealogicy (as far as we can tell from the very litle he says on subjects outside of islam/imigration) he is firmly corperatist.

10th June 2010, 11:38

Wilders just announced that he's dropping his only leftwing point in his programme: keeping the (state)pension age at 65. The possibility of a VVD-PVV-CDA coalition is suddenly a step closer. Not that I have any illusions in Wilders, but I wasn't expecting he would drop it so quickly and abrubtly... This is basically spitting in the faces of his electorate.

Wanted Man

10th June 2010, 11:51

The interesting thing is how Wilders' ideology has changed quite a bit over the years. When his rise began in 2004, he emerged from the lap of the liberal/conservative VVD party as a kind of economic libertarian with the social "policy" of ending all Islamic immigration. Over the last year, however, he has taken over a lot of SP programme points to increase his populist appeal. One of his "breaking points" for coalition negotiations was that the retirement age should remain 65, where most other parties wanted to increase this. However, this "breaking point" was scrapped today when it turned out that Wilders still has a chance to enter government.

I was watching the results as they came in with just about the entire section of red SP scum in my city, so that was a lot of fun! :) They were reasonably satisfied with themselves. In 2006, the SP gave up a lot of its principles, conducted a very good campaign, and won 25 seats. The expectation was that they were going to be a serious factor in coalition negotiations, but this did not happen; it could only go downhill from there. The party had internal problems, a massive defeat in local elections, their charismatic leader Marijnissen quitting, his replacement doing the same after the local elections, etc. At some point, the polls showed only 8 seats for them. So that they remained at 15 is somewhat impressive.

Q named some possible coalitions:

VVD-PvdA-CDA = 82

I think these parties will only resort to this when there are no other possibilities. They are not that far apart politically, these centre parties, but they would lose a lot of credibility. CDA and PvdA have just governed together, with awful results. I don't think it has ever happened that these "big three" governed together. It was almost always two of them, plus some smaller party. Again, I'm not excluding the possibility of this "grand coalition", but I think they'll try other approaches first.

VVD-PVV-CDA = 76

At some point, it looked like this combination was only going to have 74 or 75 seats, but now they have a very tight majority. For that reason, I don't think they'll take the risk. The most important aspect of this is that Wilders will be a serious factor, and we will be able to see how he handles it. The PVV made significant gains and are now the third party, but they did not grow as much as was predicted for most of the past 4 years. I think it can only get worse for them from here on.

VVD-PvdA-GL-D66 = 81

This "purple plus" (a repeat of the purple governments of 1994-2002, plus the Green Left) is a likely coalition, I think. D66 and Green Left are very liberal, and I think they are willing to go far to be able to participate. As a union organiser here often says, "If you're a bit right-wing, but you like plants, you can always vote for the Green Left".

Sasha

10th June 2010, 12:12

The most important aspect of this is that Wilders will be a serious factor, and we will be able to see how he handles it. The PVV made significant gains and are now the third party, but they did not grow as much as was predicted for most of the past 4 years. I think it can only get worse for them from here on.

dont forget the valid point i think rob outkerk (disgraced PVDA hotshot caught taking advantage of heroin prostitutes) or gert leers (slightly disgraced CDA mayor who messed around with foreign real estate) yesterday made in a discussion on tv;
who the hell would become ministers/secretarys of state for wilders?
they didnt even have enough capable politicians to lead the lists in the only two citys they contested in the local elections, they had to import parlement members from the hague to do it.
whit their now expanded amount of members in parlement he will have enough problems to keep the party from imploding without having to wory over sily things as running a country

Andy Bowden

10th June 2010, 15:55

GreenCommunism

10th June 2010, 15:58

Demogorgon

10th June 2010, 16:38

Geert wilders sounds strange, he is strongly islamophobic yet he is extremely pro free-market.
What do you expect? Right wing social policies tend to go with right wing economic policies.

Though your last post is rather illuminating about you.

As for the results here. Wouldn't Wilders going into coalition (if other parties are stupid enough to happen) have the same effect as the Pim Fortuyn list going into Government? A mass falling out and the party splitting.

EnragÃ©

10th June 2010, 17:35

all immigration? i have a similar position i think there are more children in the third world being borned than people coming in the first world. perhaps they mean open borders in a capitalist world. i am not against open border in a communist world.

the socialist party does not consider the possibility of a non-capitalist world.

Wanted Man

10th June 2010, 17:45

I remember reading that the Socialist Party of the Netherlands was anti-immigration and anti-EU - that they had a line that immigration was a plot by the rich to lower wages, so should be abolished and workers should only stay in their own country and fight for conditions there.

I'm not sure where the SP stand on immigration today, but what you're saying is certainly historically true. The SP were a maoist party until 1975, and after that, they put a more populist spin on the maoist principles of the "mass line" and "serve the people"; the SP claimed to be fully aware of what "the people" wanted. As such, they condemned feminism, because "we have observed that proletarian women do not feel oppressed at all". It is also in this line of thought that immigration was attacked in the booklet "Guest Labour and Capital" in 1983.

In this note (as far as I can recall, perhaps Q can correct me on this), the SP warned that, due to their inability to "adapt to Dutch norms", guest workers would end up as "second-class citizens", and that this was part of the "divide and conquer" principle. They claimed that the presence and unclear status of immigrants led to racism from the Dutch workers (making a distinction between them and immigrants) and a decrease in class consciousness. The note proposed that immigrants should be given money to return home. Most of the left at the time denounced this as "racist", and, far from being popular with the white working class that the SP idealised, it held back the rise of the SP for almost a decade.

To illustrate, a quote translated by me:

"Bij ons onderzoek zijn wij al vrij snel tot de konklusie gekomen dat de problemen vooral groot worden bij die mensen die van het platteland komen, de islamitiese godsdienst belijden en zich waarschijnlijk daardoor moeilijk kunnen aanpassen aan de werk- en leefgewoonten van ons land. Wij vinden die mensen hoofdzakelijk bij de uit Turkije en Marokko afkomstige gastarbeiders en hun gezinnen. De achterstand in ontwikkeling ten opzichte van ons land en de konsekwente opvattingen die zij over hun (islamitiese) geloof hebben, maken dat zij hoegenaamd kansloos in onze maatschappij staan."

"Our research quickly led us to the conclusion that the problem grows especially when it comes to people from the countryside, who hold the Islamic religion, and therefore probably have difficulties adapting to the working and living habits of our country. We can find most of these people among guest workers from Turkey and Morocco and their families. Because of their lag in development towards our country and their consistent ideas about their (Islamic) religion, they do not stand a chance in our society."

I think the SP have a more enlightened stance on immigration now, but I'm not sure what it is, and the fact remains that the SP have some very unfortunate nationalistic tendencies.

The SP are indeed considered anti-EU, or at least euroskeptic. It only makes sense to oppose the EU, but it needs to be done with a consistent class analysis. What the SP (and many other left and right euroskeptics) do seems more like scaremongering about a "European super state" that will crush national independence. They go on about all the horrible things that "Brussels" is plotting, but of course, "Brussels" is composed of all our national politicians. The fight against "Brussels" begins with the fight against our own bourgeoisie, and that needs to be identified, not vague foreign threats.

As for the results here. Wouldn't Wilders going into coalition (if other parties are stupid enough to happen) have the same effect as the Pim Fortuyn list going into Government? A mass falling out and the party splitting.

This is possible. Wilders has successfully avoided Fortuyn-like drama within his party for a long time, but recently, cracks are beginning to show. Recently, another PVV MP defied Wilders by trying to introduce internal democracy and a youth section to the party. It is also unlikely that the PVV have competent administrators.

During the local elections in March, the PVV participated only in two carefully-selected cities where they made massive gains. However, in both cities, they quickly ended coalition negotiations and went into opposition. As psycho noted correctly, during those elections, the local PVV lists had to be led by people who were already MPs.

I think these facts say a lot about their willingness and ability to govern. Because of this, one other possibility is a minority government (say, VVD and CDA) with support from the PVV.

GreenCommunism

10th June 2010, 20:33

What do you expect? Right wing social policies tend to go with right wing economic policies.

Though your last post is rather illuminating about you.

As for the results here. Wouldn't Wilders going into coalition (if other parties are stupid enough to happen) have the same effect as the Pim Fortuyn list going into Government? A mass falling out and the party splitting

okay f**k you. and most islamophobic parties are corporatist or at least protectionist, is he protectionist?

i care about people getting killed around the border. i just think that open-border communist are pussy ass liberals who think their country is so great everyone wants to live in it. these people don't seem to give a shit about people who are attached to the land they live in. and what about the right wing economic organisation calling for open-borders? real humanitarian, though i understand that the reason illegal immigrants are exploited is that they exactly are illegals.

Jozef K.

10th June 2010, 21:12

Demogorgon

10th June 2010, 21:14

This is possible. Wilders has successfully avoided Fortuyn-like drama within his party for a long time, but recently, cracks are beginning to show. Recently, another PVV MP defied Wilders by trying to introduce internal democracy and a youth section to the party. It is also unlikely that the PVV have competent administrators.

During the local elections in March, the PVV participated only in two carefully-selected cities where they made massive gains. However, in both cities, they quickly ended coalition negotiations and went into opposition. As psycho noted correctly, during those elections, the local PVV lists had to be led by people who were already MPs.

I think these facts say a lot about their willingness and ability to govern. Because of this, one other possibility is a minority government (say, VVD and CDA) with support from the PVV.
Doesn't the fact they only ran in two cities snooker them when it comes to the upper house elections and also mean a Government involving them will have trouble getting legislation through the upper house?

Anyway, I know Wilders has dropped the retirement age thing at the first scent of power, but nonetheless is he really that likely to go into coalition? After all he must know what happens to far right parties who go into coalition.
okay f**k you. and most islamophobic parties are corporatist or at least protectionist, is he protectionist?

i care about people getting killed around the border. i just think that open-border communist are pussy ass liberals who think their country is so great everyone wants to live in it. these people don't seem to give a shit about people who are attached to the land they live in. and what about the right wing economic organisation calling for open-borders? real humanitarian, though i understand that the reason illegal immigrants are exploited is that they exactly are illegals.
Or maybe open border people are people who have actual experience with the suffering caused by immigration restrictions?

And if you wish to call me a "pussy ass liberal", what do I call you? "Unevolved Conservative"? I take criticism of holding left wing views in my stride, but I don't really expect it out of OI here.

Wanted Man

10th June 2010, 21:23

Doesn't the fact they only ran in two cities snooker them when it comes to the upper house elections and also mean a Government involving them will have trouble getting legislation through the upper house?

Yes, this is another problem that was mentioned. The Senate is elected by the States-Provincial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States-Provincial), which the PVV have never participated in. In fact, looking at the composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eerste_Kamer) of the Senate, this will also be a problem for many other combinations except for the "grand coalition" of VVD-PvdA-CDA.

Anyway, I know Wilders has dropped the retirement age thing at the first scent of power, but nonetheless is he really that likely to go into coalition? After all he must know what happens to far right parties who go into coalition.

That really remains to be seen. Wilders has always claimed that the party is "ready to govern", even though practice so far seems to prove otherwise. Also, the VVD leader said that the PVV has to be taken seriously, and their electorate would prefer a coalition including the PVV. I'd say time will tell.

Red Commissar

10th June 2010, 22:02

I don't think we have to see it in purely ideological terms. The sad matter of fact is that in most western countries topics like immigration are jumped upon all major parties, riding off nativist/populist sentiment.

It's really more of an irregularity to find a major party in most contemporary states which does not hold a "tough" stance on immigration to appease that sentiment.

GreenCommunism

10th June 2010, 22:26

Or maybe open border people are people who have actual experience with the suffering caused by immigration restrictions?

maybe open border people have no actual experience of the problem of welcoming too many immigrants without the infrastructure to welcome them and programs in order to teach them the local language and assimilate them just like muslims in 1960-70s france?

there is a limit to the number of people able to live in a certain place, and india for example is pretty damn close to the limit. world poverty will never be fixed by immigration.

why did most immigrants used to say they wanted to work and leave? the capitalist government then made plans so that they could have families here. and no, i don't think white immigration is in any way better than non-white immigration. except perhaps the difference in income.

all that said, the sp party sounds like shit. and i am sorry for calling you a pussy ass liberal, i felt angry that you hinted i was right wing.

I don't think we have to see it in purely ideological terms. The sad matter of fact is that in most western countries topics like immigration are jumped upon all major parties, riding off nativist/populist sentiment.

It's really more of an irregularity to find a major party in a most contemporary states who does not hold a "tough" stance on immigration to appease that sentiment.
i guess you are right, i am playing into their games doing so. that said, canada has plenty space for immigrants :D. though we might lack infrastructure.

Jozef K.

10th June 2010, 22:37

maybe open border people have no actual experience of the problem of welcoming too many immigrants without the infrastructure to welcome them and programs in order to teach them the local language and assimilate them just like muslims in 1960-70s france?

there is a limit to the number of people able to live in a certain place, and india for example is pretty damn close to the limit. world poverty will never be fixed by immigration.

why did most immigrants used to say they wanted to work and leave? the capitalist government then made plans so that they could have families here. and no, i don't think white immigration is in any way better than non-white immigration. except perhaps the difference in income.

all that said, the sp party sounds like shit. and i am sorry for calling you a pussy ass liberal, i felt angry that you hinted i was right wing.

i guess you are right, i am playing into their games doing so. that said, canada has plenty space for immigrants :D. though we might lack infrastructure.

I actually agree with you. Holland is a very small country, only 41.526 km² and 16 million people (!) whereas Canada has 9.970.610 km² and 31 million people. You do the math :D. However it is not an issue of race or religion... its quantity. But if we had to send people away - I suggest the 1,5 million dutchmen that voted for PVV and their fucking fuhrer Geert Wilders.

Saorsa

11th June 2010, 01:15

If you do not support open borders as a citizen of an imperialist country, you are taking the side of the capitalist state when it detains and deports immigrants fleeing poverty in the Third World.

Which side are you on? It really is as simple as that.

GreenCommunism

11th June 2010, 01:20

i dont think there is any cure of poverty in open-borders. there are more poor people born every year than it is possible for the whole western world to accept.

Ravachol

11th June 2010, 01:36

i just think that open-border communist are pussy ass liberals who think their country is so great everyone wants to live in it.

Surely you must be joking. This isn't about 'our country being so great', it's about freedom of movement and the deconstruction of the nation-state, essential elements of Communism.

these people don't seem to give a shit about people who are attached to the land they live in.

I sure as hell hope you don't care for exclusive nationalism (i'm not as harsh on struggles of national-liberation, when conducted from a class-struggle perspective, as most Anarchists or Left-Communists) since it's a poison we ,as communists, ought to crush.

maybe open border people have no actual experience of the problem of welcoming too many immigrants without the infrastructure to welcome them and programs in order to teach them the local language and assimilate them just like muslims in 1960-70s france?

I beg your f*cking bloody pardon mate? You should be glad I'm not a moderator in this forum...

Calling for 'assimilation' to 'western culture' is about as reactionary as it gets. Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor 'foreign cultures', I detest every reactionary and bourgois cultural element equally, as Communists, we ought to argue in favor of breaking with cultural hegemony of whatever variety, not arguing in favor of reproducing western bourgois cultural hegemony or maintaining 'foreign' bourgois cultural hegemony.

why did most immigrants used to say they wanted to work and leave? the capitalist government then made plans so that they could have families here. and no, i don't think white immigration is in any way better than non-white immigration. except perhaps the difference in income.

What does this have to do AT ALL with the working class and their struggle against Capital?

i dont think there is any cure of poverty in open-borders. there are more poor people born every year than it is possible for the whole western world to accept.

Nobody is suggesting the 'cure' are open borders under Capitalism. We see increasing profileration of the 3rd world inside the 1st world and the other way around under late Capitalism. Ghetto-formation is a common process in the '1st world', for example. Just opening up borders under Capitalism won't fix anything, but arguing in favor of CLOSED borders is plain reactionary. The solution is collective resistance against Capital and the social order it produces: Living communism. Only by tearing away the Capitalist system can we see an end to this madness, in such a system however, borders would obviously disappear alltogether as would the state.

EnragÃ©

11th June 2010, 01:39

i dont think there is any cure of poverty in open-borders. there are more poor people born every year than it is possible for the whole western world to accept.

the point is not that open borders cure poverty, the point is that closed borders cause immense human suffering on the part of those who will try to immigrate anyway. The choice is not between people staying where they are now and people coming to western countries, the choice is between beating them away/locking them up/shooting them dead and giving them the treatment they deserve as fellow (oppressed) human beings.

Also what you mean by more than is possible to accept is more than is possible to maintain the current level of wealth/exploitation/order. And from the point of view of the non-westerner, isnt it more than justified to come for what was built on his back?

Antifa94

11th June 2010, 01:47

at least geert wilders(death be unto him) didn't win
even if his party made alarming gains.

gorillafuck

11th June 2010, 01:52

Calling for 'assimilation' to 'western culture' is about as reactionary as it gets. Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor 'foreign cultures', I detest every reactionary and bourgois cultural element equally, as Communists, we ought to argue in favor of breaking with cultural hegemony of whatever variety, not arguing in favor of reproducing western bourgois cultural hegemony or maintaining 'foreign' bourgois cultural hegemony.
What exactly makes a culture bourgeois?

Ravachol

11th June 2010, 02:01

What exactly makes a culture bourgeois?

A culture cannot really be bourgeois in itself. Almost every 'culture' (save some miniscule tribal cultures) nowadays however has developed under a discours guided by the dominant class, which has been the bourgoisie for the past few centuries. Culture reflects social interaction it's protocols which in turn reflect social relationships which are dominated by Capital's logic and it's cultural hegemony.

A prime example is the increasing dominance of certain Calvinist values, initially among the merchant class, with the rise of merchant-capital in the Netherlands. These values emphasized cultural patterns that corresponded with the social relations enforced and reproduced by the dominance of merchant-capital.

In this sense, culture reproduces both class society, the dominant discours and a myriad of social interactions we as communists ought to obliterate.

GreenCommunism

11th June 2010, 05:07

I sure as hell hope you don't care for exclusive nationalism (i'm not as harsh on struggles of national-liberation, when conducted from a class-struggle perspective, as most Anarchists or Left-Communists) since it's a poison we ,as communists, ought to crush
people like the hometown they are born in, no matter how much they hate it and the people in it, they feel good about living there(i'm generalizing), it gives them memories, sort of paradox of loving your country and hating the government. i'm not talking about exclusive nationalism, i'm talking about going back to your hometown when you left it for 10-20 years to work somewhere, that kind of nostalgia.

I beg your f*cking bloody pardon mate? You should be glad I'm not a moderator in this forum...

Calling for 'assimilation' to 'western culture' is about as reactionary as it gets. Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor 'foreign cultures', I detest every reactionary and bourgois cultural element equally, as Communists, we ought to argue in favor of breaking with cultural hegemony of whatever variety, not arguing in favor of reproducing western bourgois cultural hegemony or maintaining 'foreign' bourgois cultural hegemony.
sorry i think you may have gotten me wrong and i guess i should have been clearer since i know assimilation is pretty dumb. i know this idea that immigrants have to assimilate at all cost often breed racist sentiments or so. in canada we have multi-culturalism and it may lead to some ghettoism in a certain way but i do believe it is the best policy with immigration. i don't want anyone to reject his heritage in order to blend in society, or adopt names of the host nation. perhaps integrate would be a better word? as in feeling good with your neighbours or so? i am talking mostly about learning the local language which is pretty much impossible to avoid if one wants to have good relations with the local people. though it may be possible not to.

What does this have to do AT ALL with the working class and their struggle against Capital?
not much i agree, but i was under the impression that most wanted to work and gain money to go back and get a better life for their family in the country where they lived due to attachment to it.

Nobody is suggesting the 'cure' are open borders under Capitalism. We see increasing profileration of the 3rd world inside the 1st world and the other way around under late Capitalism. Ghetto-formation is a common process in the '1st world', for example. Just opening up borders under Capitalism won't fix anything, but arguing in favor of CLOSED borders is plain reactionary. The solution is collective resistance against Capital and the social order it produces: Living communism. Only by tearing away the Capitalist system can we see an end to this madness, in such a system however, borders would obviously disappear alltogether as would the state.
well it sounds like most people here are a open-border communist stereotype. then again to be honest there are racist scare in canada(but were inexistent from 1960s to around 2000 and are mostly religious accomodation crap) but never of the illegal immigrant types, it just has to do with geography.

GreenCommunism

11th June 2010, 05:14

the point is not that open borders cure poverty, the point is that closed borders cause immense human suffering on the part of those who will try to immigrate anyway. The choice is not between people staying where they are now and people coming to western countries, the choice is between beating them away/locking them up/shooting them dead and giving them the treatment they deserve as fellow (oppressed) human beings.

Also what you mean by more than is possible to accept is more than is possible to maintain the current level of wealth/exploitation/order. And from the point of view of the non-westerner, isnt it more than justified to come for what was built on his back?

you did convince me. i shouldn't argue for closed borders . though i wonder if you guys got it wrong, i didnt mean closed border as in nobody comes in unless someone leaves. i mean with regulated immigration.

when i talked about maximum people living there i am talking about mostly water. and infrastructure such as hospitals. some people want a lower immigration rate for more assimilation and so on but i don't think like that. also, canada or quebec in particular has a shitload of water, so it's not like my country has anything to fear about it, there is also not much of a illegal immigrant phenomenon, though of course there is some. though like 6% of them come from the united states, which i frankly don't understand the reason to go to canada illegaly.

Jozef K.

11th June 2010, 08:08

Ignore please.

EnragÃ©

13th June 2010, 12:54

you did convince me. i shouldn't argue for closed borders . though i wonder if you guys got it wrong, i didnt mean closed border as in nobody comes in unless someone leaves. i mean with regulated immigration.

when i talked about maximum people living there i am talking about mostly water. and infrastructure such as hospitals. some people want a lower immigration rate for more assimilation and so on but i don't think like that. also, canada or quebec in particular has a shitload of water, so it's not like my country has anything to fear about it, there is also not much of a illegal immigrant phenomenon, though of course there is some. though like 6% of them come from the united states, which i frankly don't understand the reason to go to canada illegaly.

:)

well instrastructure can be built, no? And more immigrants means more hands to do the work with, and the more hands the less work for each individual. 'Regulation' of immigration usually only means that people who come from a really poor place will be turned away because they lack education and certain skills that make them more profitable for capitalist companies. So what you'll wind up with is only allowing those who already were rich inside the country, so u'll have more bankers or something and i dont know if thats what u want.

If, on the other hand, you want to regulate it in the sense that only 'political refugees'/'asylum seekers' can get in - well you basicly condemn people going somewhere else because they are dirt poor. You condemn people on the brink of starvation because they are not being prosecuted by the government. Well they're being prosecuted by the economy for not being 'profitable'. In the end, the right to take someone's life (political authority), is in effect hardly distinguishable from the right to refuse somebody access to what sustains his life (economic authority). Both winds people up getting killed.