Mass Immigration

[servusmoderni]

Alright, since I've been thrown in jail by unknown forces I'm going to start a thread on the same subject that I was restricted and sent to the Gulags.

So I was restricted because I said Sweden had an immigration problem.

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2697432&postcount=3)

Which it does.

Sweden has 8.0% of unemployment. They have one of the highest rate of Youth unemployment in Europe. 23%.

Still, to this day. 100 000 immigrant enter Sweden each year. Is it just me or am I realizing this doesn't make any sense?

No, I'm not the only one:
Here's the retired leader of the French Communist Party (before it was invaded by Zionists, feminists and .Edit*. liberals) who talks about how the unemployment is too high and still there's more than 250 000 immigrants who come in each year. (It's in French, but still)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktlu4JAETCM

Before I made this thread I had a conversation with a 10th grader (lol, he probably never opened a book) who told me that if I was anti-immigration, I wasn't a "real" communist. He also, like all the Trotskyists of this world, said I was racist. Which I'm not.

Now here's my theory that got me banned (restricted):


Mass immigration is a tactic used by capitalists under the pretext of globalization to manipulate the labor pool like the ancient imperialist powers did with slaves or colonies.Here's an interesting article who kind of supports my theory.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2255

This thread will determine if I stay on this forum or I never log in again.

EDIT*: I removed "retarded liberal" It should be taken note of that being liberal already requires mental illness.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Here's the retired leader of the French Communist Party (before it was invaded by Zionists, feminists and retarded liberals)

Oh god... You're not helping your cause here, bud! :laugh:

[Fourth Internationalist]

Before I made this thread I had a conversation with a 10th grader (lol, he probably never opened a book) who told me that if I was anti-immigration, I wasn't a "real" communist. He also, like all the Trotskyists of this world, said I was racist. Which I'm not.

OMG I just noticed this! HAHAHA! :laugh:

I plead guilty to being pro-immigrant!

Yes, I'm in 10th grade. However, isn't that more insulting to you, since my age is a target of insult? I think you need to, ironically, grow up!

[Art Vandelay]

words

I really don't know enough about you to say whether or not you should of been restricted, especially since the idea that global capital uses immigrant labor to manipulate the market does not seem that controversial to me, but after reading this:


Here's the retired leader of the French Communist Party (before it was invaded by Zionists, feminists and retarded liberals) who talks about

I have no doubt you ended up in the right place.

e: the carlos the jackal avatar is a nice touch, I hope you're a troll.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Now here's my theory that got me banned (restricted):
Mass immigration is a tactic used by capitalists under the pretext of globalization to manipulate the labor pool like the ancient imperialist powers did with slaves or colonies.

This is simply wrong. This is what you said when you whined in the OI intro thread. What really got you restricted for was this claim:
It's true that Sweden has an immigration problem, but these bunch of Nazi apes are really a disgrace to humanity.

[Sinister Intents]

Alright, since I've been thrown in jail by unknown forces I'm going to start a thread on the same subject that I was restricted and sent to the Gulags.

So I was restricted because I said Sweden had an immigration problem.

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2697432&postcount=3)

Which it does.

Sweden has 8.0% of unemployment. They have one of the highest rate of Youth unemployment in Europe. 23%.

Still, to this day. 100 000 immigrant enter Sweden each year. Is it just me or am I realizing this doesn't make any sense?

No, I'm not the only one:
Here's the retired leader of the French Communist Party (before it was invaded by Zionists, feminists and retarded liberals) who talks about how the unemployment is too high and still there's more than 250 000 immigrants who come in each year. (It's in French, but still)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktlu4JAETCM

Before I made this thread I had a conversation with a 10th grader (lol, he probably never opened a book) who told me that if I was anti-immigration, I wasn't a "real" communist. He also, like all the Trotskyists of this world, said I was racist. Which I'm not.

Now here's my theory that got me banned (restricted):

Here's an interesting article who kind of supports my theory.
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2255

This thread will determine if I stay on this forum or I never log in again.

I'm pro immigration, you obviously don't belong here. Also don't use prejudiced language.

[servusmoderni]

You're all saying I'm wrong, but can't find any arguments why?

[Sinister Intents]

You're all saying I'm wrong, but can't find any arguments why?
Because immigration and emigration should be free for everyone, not controlled by anyone at all. Also your use of the word 'retard' in the previous post I find offensive because I have what is known as Asperger's.

[Remus Bleys]

I wonder when Dodger will get around to thanking your posts

[Fourth Internationalist]

You're all saying I'm wrong, but can't find any arguments why?

Besides from what you and I have already talked about from the visitor messages...

Your idea that immigration is taken advantage of by capitalists shouldn't lead to the conclusion that immigration should be banned. It means we should, you know, attack the bourgeoisie with solidarity with our fellow workers, regardless of immigrant status!

Secondly, blaming immigrants for economic troubles (for example, unemployment) justifies action against immigrants. Shouldn't we stop them by force if they're hurting a native population? That's the logic of anti-immigrant violence. Rather, we should blame the bourgeoisie, rightfully so.

Thirdly, since when is it a principled communist action to support laws by the bourgeois state to arrest our fellow workers? Surely they'd be arrested and punished by the bourgeois state, no? Don't give more power to the bourgeois state!

Also, why are you against feminism? Everyone on this forum, who isn't restricted, supports feminism.

You could, also, just ignore me, for I am just a lowly tenth grader who has never read a book, right?

[servusmoderni]

Because immigration and emigration should be free for everyone, not controlled by anyone at all. Also your use of the word 'retard' in the previous post I find offensive because I have what is known as Asperger's.

Sorry about that but I'm not talking about you nor anyone who has any mental illness. Rather those who lack knowledge in everything.

[Sinister Intents]

Sorry about that but I'm not talking about you nor anyone who has any mental illness. Rather those who lack knowledge in everything.
Ok. those who lack knowledge in everything? You're judgemental.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sorry about that but I'm not talking about you nor anyone who has any mental illness. Rather those who lack knowledge in everything.

In other words, a judgement of yourself? Accurate, some might say.

[DDR]

In b4 the ban!



Here's the retired leader of the French Communist Party (before it was invaded by Zionists, feminists and retarded liberals)

Also, as an M-L and older than your grandpa, I dunno yet if you're a racist, but sure as hell you're a huge bigot.

PS: It's time to unleach the cute animal pictures barrage or shall we still keep it civil?

[servusmoderni]

Also, why are you against feminism? Everyone on this forum, who isn't restricted, supports feminism.

It shouldn't even exist. It's not even a political class. + Feminists don't represent most women so I don't really associate with any of what they say.

There's only 2 classes: The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie.

All the other divert from the class struggle. But I agree, women's liberation should be included in the revolution.

[Radio Spartacus]

I heap praise upon the "unknown forces" that restricted you. This very post, putting down several oppressed groups simultaneously, shows that you're a prejudiced fool unworthy of debate.

Someone kill this thread.

[Bostana]

So I was restricted because I said Sweden had an immigration problem.
The whole idea of illegal immigration is a racist/nationalist thing. Which leftists are against.


feminists
Fuck you


retarded liberals.
Seriously? Retarded? What are you? a 10 year old on xbox? Seriously that has got to be one of the most ignorant uneducated insults ever


This thread will determine if I stay on this forum or I never log in again.

Please don't

[Sinister Intents]

It shouldn't even exist. It's not even a political class. + Feminists don't represent most women so I don't really associate with any of what they say.

There's only 2 classes: The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie.

All the other divert from the class struggle. But I agree, women's liberation should be included in the revolution.

Goodbye Servusmoderni.

[Bostana]

I sense a ban......
rY0WxgSXdEE

[servusmoderni]

The whole idea of illegal immigration is a racist/nationalist thing. Which leftists are against.


Fuck you


Seriously? Retarded? What are you? a 10 year old on xbox? Seriously that has got to be one of the most ignorant uneducated insults ever



Please don't

I didn't know 500 people on a shitty forum had appointed a spokesperson for the entire left.

Thank god, you guys are only a few because the entire left would be fucked.

[servusmoderni]

I sense a ban......
rY0WxgSXdEE

Well done, Yoda.

[servusmoderni]

Because immigration and emigration should be free for everyone, not controlled by anyone at all. Also your use of the word 'retard' in the previous post I find offensive because I have what is known as Asperger's.

Do you realize how naive that sounds?

[Sinister Intents]

I didn't know 500 people on a shitty forum had appointed a spokesperson for the entire left.

Thank god, you guys are only a few because the entire left would be fucked.

Lol. I don't think you're 'left' considering things you've said, so you're fucked more so.

[servusmoderni]

In other words, a judgement of yourself? Accurate, some might say.
If by some, you mean 6 people on the internet, then I guess you're right.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Would you address these (especially the third one)?


Your idea that immigration is taken advantage of by capitalists shouldn't lead to the conclusion that immigration should be banned. It means we should, you know, attack the bourgeoisie with solidarity with our fellow workers, regardless of immigrant status!

Secondly, blaming immigrants for economic troubles (for example, unemployment) justifies action against immigrants. Shouldn't we stop them by force if they're hurting a native population? That's the logic of anti-immigrant violence. Rather, we should blame the bourgeoisie, rightfully so.

Thirdly, since when is it a principled communist action to support laws by the bourgeois state to arrest our fellow workers? Surely they'd be arrested and punished by the bourgeois state, no? Don't give more power to the bourgeois state!

[Bostana]

I didn't know 500 people on a shitty forum had appointed a spokesperson for the entire left.

It may be a shitty forum but it's our shitty forum


Thank god, you guys are only a few because the entire left would be fucked.

So you think feminism is bad, and you use the word retarded and were the bad guys who make the left look bad?

[Art Vandelay]

Thank god, you guys are only a few because the entire left would be fucked.

The left is fucked, that's not even up for debate, but it has nothing to do with individuals on this forum and their disagreement with your views.

[Sinister Intents]

retarded liberals
also fuck you.

[DDR]

Do you realize how naive that sounds?

Ok, you just said that it was only prolets vs burgeoise. Those inmigrants are workers who try to improve their lifes and their loved ones like any person does. These people get sitty jobs that the Swedes doesn't want. Probably employed by some blue eyed, blond, 14th generation Swede who preffers to have immigrants working almost as a slaves for a "bowl of rice a day" rather than to pay a regular wage. Now tell me how the fuck is the bad guy in this whole story.

[servusmoderni]

Would you address these (especially the third one)?



Your idea that immigration is taken advantage of by capitalists shouldn't lead to the conclusion that immigration should be banned. It means we should, you know, attack the bourgeoisie with solidarity with our fellow workers, regardless of immigrant status!

Secondly, blaming immigrants for economic troubles (for example, unemployment) justifies action against immigrants. Shouldn't we stop them by force if they're hurting a native population? That's the logic of anti-immigrant violence. Rather, we should blame the bourgeoisie, rightfully so.

Thirdly, since when is it a principled communist action to support laws by the bourgeois state to arrest our fellow workers? Surely they'd be arrested and punished by the bourgeois state, no? Don't give more power to the bourgeois state!

1. I never said immigration should be banned, I said it shouldn't be used by capitalists as a labor pool to more where ever they need them. It should also profit the country and the people. Not the Bourgeois. Note that I only talk about "MASS" immigration, not the average workers who want to move to an other country. I myself come from a family of immigrants.

2. I don't blame immigrants for economic troubles, but you blame economic troubles as a motive for mass immigration. When there's already too much people to fill all the jobs, why the fuck would we welcome more people?

3. The bourgeois state is the state who opens the borders, by the way... The level of irony is astounding. Everything they do should be put up to suspicion.

[servusmoderni]

These people get sitty jobs that the Swedes doesn't want.

We're talking about 25% unemployment for the Swedish youth. It's more than shitty jobs.

[servusmoderni]

The left is fucked, that's not even up for debate, but it has nothing to do with individuals on this forum and their disagreement with your views.

So you're saying the reason why the left is fucked is not because of the people who constitute the left.

Seems legit. It must be Stalin's fault. :glare:

[servusmoderni]

...

Delete this before they attack you and ban you like they're going to do with me. Save your account! Quick! :laugh:

[DDR]

We're talking about 25% unemployment for the Swedish youth. It's more than shitty jobs.

I'm talking you for a country with more than 50% unemployed youth, almost 27% total, immigrants are leaving (and spaniards becoming emmigrants) and still there's no more jobs. If capitalist want a reserve labour army they make it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

1. I never said immigration should be banned, I said it shouldn't be used by capitalists as a labor pool to more where ever they need them. It should also profit the country and the people. Not the Bourgeois. Note that I only talk about "MASS" immigration, not the average workers who want to move to an other country. I myself come from a family of immigrants.

This cannot be resolved within capitalism. And once it is resolved by overthrowing capitalism, the reasons for immigration will be null. So why is it an issue that you talk about as if it is something we should choose to support or no? Or, why can't you be against that and still be in solidarity with immigrants? Your point about that, which you keep repeating, doesn't contradict pro-immigration.


2. I don't blame immigrants for economic troubles, but you blame economic troubles as a motive for mass immigration. When there's already too much people to fill all the jobs, why the fuck would we welcome more people?

So, they're taking "our" jobs, yet they're not causing there to be a limited supply of jobs? Is that not an economic trouble?

I'd welcome them because they are also a part of the working class, and they offer leftists who have not gone through the tough process of immigration a unique, first-hand perspective on it. I don't care what country they're from, they're workers and therefore we should remain in solidarity.


3. The bourgeois state is the state who opens the borders, by the way... The level of irony is astounding. Everything they do should be put up to suspicion.

They open it up because it, to a certain level, benefits them. We all know and accept that. Now, if we advocate for them to close it and make it illegal, then they will have to arrest all the workers who cross the border. Or would that not happen?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you're saying the reason why the left is fucked is not because of the people who constitute the left.

Seems legit. It must be Stalin's fault. :glare:

I'm almost certain he was talking about the people on this forum, not the entire left. Unless you view those as synonymous. Though, I thought you said that that wasn't the case, no?

[servusmoderni]

I'm talking you for a country with more than 50% unemployed youth, almost 27% total, immigrants are leaving (and spaniards becoming emmigrants) and still there's more jobs. If capitalist want a reserve labour army they make it.

There's not a overpopulation like there is in Sweden. See everything explains itself. I support immigration when it's needed. That's all, I don't see the fuss for all this restriction stuff. :confused:

[servusmoderni]

I'm almost certain he was talking about the people on this forum, not the entire left. Unless you view those as synonymous. Though, I thought you said that that wasn't the case, no?

Yes, but it's kind of weird that everyone who's on here all think the same. It's like they ban people with other opinion... oh wait.. :unsure:

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, but it's kind of weird that everyone who's on here all think the same.

On social issues like feminism, immigration, LGBT rights, etc. yes, we all share the same views mostly. But when you enter into other areas of leftist politics, this forum gets pretty awful.


It's like they ban people with other opinion... oh wait.. :unsure:

Sometimes, yes, because this forum is for inter-leftist discussion.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, but it's kind of weird that everyone who's on here all think the same. It's like they ban people with other opinion... oh wait.. :unsure:

I've been banned from this site twice and on the opposite end of the spectrum have taken part in discussions which lead to bannings. I'll admit that I disagree with certain actions the BA takes, but having said that the majority of bans are justified. I can certainly think of a few that come to mind that weren't, but most don't have this element of intrigue behind them that some people seem to think. Also this thread isn't about the BA or the methods they use to ban people, but rather your views on this specific topic; you started the thread, chose the topic, etc...so stick to it.


I'm almost certain he was talking about the people on this forum, not the entire left. Unless you view those as synonymous. Though, I thought you said that that wasn't the case, no?

Yes, you're correct. This individual is clearly confused.

[servusmoderni]

I'll admit that I disagree with certain actions the BA takes, but having said that the majority of bans are justified.

I was banned once and no reason was given, so much for justification.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There's not a overpopulation like there is in Sweden. See everything explains itself. I support immigration when it's needed. That's all, I don't see the fuss for all this restriction stuff. :confused:

What the fuck is the overpopulation in Sweden?

Immigration should only be acceptable when it benefits capitalism, then, is that what you are saying?

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you're saying the reason why the left is fucked is not because of the people who constitute the left.

Seems legit. It must be Stalin's fault. :glare:

Also, on this, Stalinism definitely did have an effect on current state of the left, an incredibly negative one actually. Because of its counterrevolutionary activity throughout the 20th century, the world is vastly different than what it could have been. Revolutions like in China, Spain, Vietnam, etc. where non-Stalinist workers fought could have resulted in workers' states. Unfortunately, these anti-Stalinists' attempts were crushed, and any attempt at genuine revolution was destroyed. It's quite sad to think about where we could be, right now, if Stalinism was defeated early on... :crying:

[Fourth Internationalist]

I was banned once and no reason was given, so much for justification.

You were not banned but rather restricted.

[DDR]

It's quite sad to think about where we could be, right now, if Stalinism was defeated early on... :crying:

Probably, speaking German.

[servusmoderni]

What the fuck is the overpopulation in Sweden?

Immigration should only be acceptable when it benefits capitalism, then, is that what you are saying?

You don't understand capitalism don't you... Capitalists benefit from mass immigration, when the labor pool is bigger, wages can be reduced. Workers can be menaced of being fired etc...

[servusmoderni]

You were not banned but rather restricted.

Please don't correct me, I had an other account and I was banned.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Please don't correct me, I had an other account and I was banned.

Sock puppet accounts aren't allowed. A bannable offense, I think, if your other account was banned.

This is good-bye, I guess.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You don't understand capitalism don't you... Capitalists benefit from mass immigration, when the labor pool is bigger, wages can be reduced. Workers can be menaced of being fired etc...

They can, but not necessarily. That isn't the issue here. The issue is how to respond to that challenge. You, it seems, think that the answer is to restrict immigration, I presume?

But why do you say "overpopulation", as if it is about scarce resources. A lack of employment opportunities due to de-industrialisation and so on isn't something that was planned; the capitalists exploit such situations where they arise, but they might just as well prefer their workers deemed "illegal", as this makes them lawless. Which would be your answer to the challenge, right?

[Sinister Intents]

Sock puppet accounts aren't allowed. A bannable offense, I think, if your other account was banned.

This is good-bye, I guess.
I thought that is what a sock puppet was. :)

[servusmoderni]

Sock puppet accounts aren't allowed. A bannable offense, I think, if your other account was banned.

This is good-bye, I guess.

It was three years ago, I think I have other duties than to roam around this forum infuriating people...

And stop thinking you're God, it's kind of annoying.

[#FF0000]

You don't understand capitalism don't you... Capitalists benefit from mass immigration, when the labor pool is bigger, wages can be reduced. Workers can be menaced of being fired etc...

Unemployment depresses wages too. What about the unemployed, then?

I'll just cross-post this from the OI intro thread:


No, I have an education. We should organize with them, but making them come in massive numbers is not going to resolve the problems they have in their own countries.

Er, no one is proposing that we make anyone do anything. Of course we do oppose things like the Free Trade Agreements and myriad other neoliberal machinations that would lead people to emigrate -- but that's different from being against immigration itself.


Immigrants are now the favorite labor of capitalists, they move them around. Just like imperialist powers did with slaves or colonies.In Europe, maybe. The neat thing about this entire debate is that we've seen this exact same issue before in the United States with its massive influx of immigrants, and we see supposed "socialists" making the same mistakes as sell-out shitheels like the Knights of Labor and the AFL made in the 19th/20th century.


If you ask an immigrant, I'm pretty sure he would have stayed in his country he had no financial problems. It's not because they want to leave, it's because they are forced to leave. Due to money problems.Yeah that's true, but if you ask your typical disphit who wrings his hands about immigration, he doesn't give a shit about the well-being of immigrant workers -- he just wants them to get out. Meanwhile, though I doubt anyone who's leaving their whole world behind just to find work is happy with the idea, I'm sure they also aren't keen on the way immigrants are treated.

So, yeah, what do you expect to be able to work with immigrants on, exactly?

[Fourth Internationalist]

It was three years ago, I think I have other duties than to roam around this forum infuriating people...

And stop thinking you're God, it's kind of annoying.

Oh thank you. I really thought I was God :confused:

[Radio Spartacus]

There aren't even fucking borders in Communism by the way, so the whole conversation is worthless. Obviously we should be supporting oppressed immigrants before then, and obviously this guy is spouting prejudiced nonsense that helps the enemy. This is all a reflection of servusmoderni's bourgeois values and beliefs. The sooner servusmoderni is banned and this thread is trashed the better.

[servusmoderni]

So, yeah, what do you expect to be able to work with immigrants on, exactly?

I watched this post for about 5 minutes and I can't understand what you mean.

[servusmoderni]

There aren't even fucking borders in Communism by the way, so the whole conversation is worthless. Obviously we should be supporting oppressed immigrants before then, and obviously this guy is spouting prejudiced nonsense that helps the enemy. This is all a reflection of servusmoderni's bourgeois values and beliefs. The sooner servusmoderni is banned and this thread is trashed the better.

A very positive comment who just elevated this discussion, thank you. (Sarcasm)

[dodger]

86% of British people are resolutely opposed to mass immigration. A similar % in Holland too. A popular view amongst trade unionists whatever their ethnic background. No surprise there, with 50% black youth unemployment. People want jobs for their children.
A successful meeting in London's Conway Hall echoed worker's thoughts. The subject now aired at every level of the trade union movement. Why not? --it is a class issue. With 60% of Londoners born outside Britain a body of knowledge exists about migration. So many contributions from the floor. A link below to one of the speakers, well received:

http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat_1213/movement.html

http://bulatlat.com/main/2005/01/23/medical-schools-rake-in-profits-%E2%80%93-but-health-system-is-in-crisis/

http://iboninternational.org/page/whats_new/247

http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/03/21/migrants-group-brands-government-as-%E2%80%98biggest-human-trafficker%E2%80%9D/

[Radio Spartacus]

A very positive comment who just elevated this discussion, thank you. (Sarcasm)

There isn't a discussion to elevate. Any mod reading this thread should trash it and ban you because you've turned it into a platform for your personal vendetta against revleft poorly disguised as a conversation about your bourgeois belief about immigration.

[Remus Bleys]

86% of British people are resolutely opposed to mass immigration. A similar % in Holland too.
What percentage oppose communism?

A popular view amongst trade unionists whatever their ethnic background. No surprise there, with 50% black youth unemployment. People want jobs for their children.YES MR. BOURGEOIS PLEASE GIVE ME A JOB is basically what you are asking communists to do.


With 60% of Londoners born outside Britain a body of knowledge exists about migration.
you say that like its a bad thing.

[servusmoderni]

There isn't a discussion to elevate. Any mod reading this thread should trash it and ban you because you've turned it into a platform for your personal vendetta against revleft poorly disguised as a conversation about your bourgeois belief about immigration.

^^

sometime makes you wonder if people even read about socialism.

[Remus Bleys]

^^

sometime makes you wonder if people even read about socialism.
right back at you Mr. MARX OPPOSED IMMIGRANTS!

[Sinister Intents]

^^

sometime makes you wonder if people even read about socialism.

Obviously a large portion of us have. Have you read any socialist texts? have you read Capital? What have YOU read?

[Radio Spartacus]

^^

sometime makes you wonder if people even read about socialism.

Once again, you're proving that this thread is really centered on your feelings about revleft. If you have a complaint about your restriction, direct it to the proper channels. Just know that your anti-immigrant sentiments and prejudiced language do warrant at very least restriction, that your sentiments about immigrants are bourgeois as anything, and that I can see that this thread is just a platform for you to rail against revleft disguised as a (really anti-worker) "theory" about immigration'

[Fourth Internationalist]

Obviously a large portion of us have. Have you read any socialist texts? have you read Capital? What have YOU read?

I'm going to guess Grover Furr, every issue of Pravda from 1924 onwards, and some anti-immigrant literature.

[dodger]

I watched this post for about 5 minutes and I can't understand what you mean.

hint:

http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/sites/default/files/cockfosters2.jpg

[Remus Bleys]

dodger are you actually insane?

[dodger]

dodger are you actually insane?

you are not the first person to ask....dear Remus.

[dodger]

With 60% of Londoners born outside Britain a body of knowledge exists about migration.
Remus

you say that like its a bad thing.

I was brought up in London and my entire working life. It's all I know. I don't know where that thought might have come from. Not everyone took part in 'White Flight".:laugh:

[#FF0000]

86% of British people are resolutely opposed to mass immigration. A similar % in Holland too. A popular view amongst trade unionists whatever their ethnic background. No surprise there, with 50% black youth unemployment. People want jobs for their children.
A successful meeting in London's Conway Hall echoed worker's thoughts. The subject now aired at every level of the trade union movement. Why not? --it is a class issue. With 60% of Londoners born outside Britain a body of knowledge exists about migration. So many contributions from the floor. A link below to one of the speakers, well received

So what? You ask the bulk of (craft) unionists in the US in the 19th century when hella European immigrants were crawling off the boats and you'd hear the same thing. Ask white Philadelphian transit workers in 1944 what they think of working with black people, and you'll hear the same thing and see similar numbers. Working class people aren't saints and being a socialist doesn't mean sitting around and swaying to whatever "common sense" ignorance is being sold to working people to keep us divided.

I wonder, what do those same British workers think of abolishing private property, wage labor, and the monarchy?


dodger are you actually insane?


Uh actually I think dodger got exactly what I was going for

[tachosomoza]

What the hell is going on in he...ah fuck it.

*backs out of room

[dodger]

Er, no one is proposing that we make anyone do anything. Of course we do oppose things like the Free Trade Agreements and myriad other neoliberal machinations that would lead people to emigrate -- but that's different from being against immigration itself.

EU and its US variant along with globalization Supranational deals set out behind closed doors should be opposed. Strenuously.

Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution
TUAEUC Secretary Doug Nicholls described the EU as a dying beast lashing out in weakness. It represents failed national capitalisms, which huddle together for warmth, but in reality are on a life support machine. He likened the real motor behind the EU, the "Round Table" of industrialists, to pirates robbing the people ever more greedily, but as their treasure chests rise so their ships begin to sink.

Free movement of labour and capital is that life-line.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Free movement of labour and capital is that life-line.
There is no free movement of labor from a worker's perspective, that's the thing: immigration laws and restrictions only end up managing and controlling labor and ultimately creating a lower caste of labor due to added illegality, precariousness, and fear of reporting abuses. Supporting restrictions on immigration and immigrants aids the ruling class in being able to repress sections of the working class while simultaneously dividing the working class along native (who must turn to their rulers to "save" them from competition from other labor) and immigrant lines.

Immigration laws and restrictions are counter to class solidarity and give the ruling class more power over working class lives; failing to see this is either chauvinism or an adaptation to chauvinism. It's short-sighted in terms of class strategy even for native workers -- at best. Being a socialist and also anti immigrant is like being a pro-segregationist or pro-Zionist socialist... It's possible, but only because people can have contradictory ideas sometimes.

[dodger]

There is no free movement of labor from a worker's perspective, that's the thing: immigration laws and restrictions only end up managing and controlling labor and ultimately creating a lower caste of labor due to added illegality, precariousness, and fear of reporting abuses. Supporting restrictions on immigration and immigrants aids the ruling class in being able to repress sections of the working class while simultaneously dividing the working class along native (who must turn to their rulers to "save" them from competition from other labor) and immigrant lines.

Immigration laws and restrictions are counter to class solidarity and give the ruling class more power over working class lives; failing to see this is either chauvinism or an adaptation to chauvinism. It's short-sighted in terms of class strategy even for native workers -- at best. Being a socialist and also anti immigrant is like being a pro-segregationist or pro-Zionist socialist... It's possible, but only because people can have contradictory ideas sometimes.

Your invitation to join a race to the bottom will find few takers Jimmie. Anti immigrants or chauvinists or pro segregationalist or Pro Zionists do what they do. Face it Mass Migration is not a solution for anyone. How could we say with a straight face ,,,we have a million youth looking for work...import more labour is the answer. Dump our youth, leave them without hope? If we all desire social cohesion not the way.

http://www.spectrezine.org/european-transport-unions-resist-privatisation-and-social-dumping.

Just as social cohesion seems a will o' the wisp.
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5252/full

RMT mulls migration curbs

WORKERS, MAR 2013 ISSUE

In a significant move, the RMT (the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) has opened up discussion with an article in its magazine, RMT News, about how a Resident Labour Market Test could stop what the union calls “social dumping” – bringing in cheap labour from abroad to undercut British pay and conditions.

“The response of much of the ‘Left’, of most trade unions and the Labour Party, calling for equal conditions for migrant workers, is inadequate for many reasons but mainly that it is simply not working,” says the article. It adds that a Resident Market Labour Test would require renegotiating freedom of movement with the EU “on the grounds that it is overwhelmingly one-way and that the current situation is illegitimate” – and says that without renegotiation “the only way out is to leave the EU”.

Worldwide supplies of labour tip the scales away from workers towards capital. The EU aims to ensnare ever more, ever poorer, countries – Croatia (18 per cent unemployment), Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, countries across North Africa, and Turkey. Faced with this, the government’s Points Based System (PBS) actually brings in workers from outside the EU. Despite the government’s supposed cap, there are no limits on key PBS categories, such as transferees within the same corporation and foreign students (a major labour entry pathway with no exit monitoring).

Only one category of the PBS has a Resident Labour Market Test, as a result of the Lindsey Oil Refinery workers’ fine victory. Jobs must be advertised in specified places for a specified period before an employer can apply for a Tier 2 General Migrant visa. This should be required for all British jobs.

In the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, India’s sole demand is for so-called worker entry access. It would let any Indian firm supply temporary workers to any British industry. Again, the PBS sets no limits. Britain’s capitalists will get the “gain”, through investment opportunities in India, and British workers will get the pain, through lost jobs.

Evidence that new legislation, trumpeted by the European Union, has proved ineffective against social dumping, came last year with the dumping of RMT maritime members as Condor Ferries replaced British ratings with Ukrainian workers. Massive scope remains for shipping companies to pay lower wages to seafarers from non-EU countries. Condor Ferries employs Ukrainian seafarers on as little as £2.35 per hour (£28.19 a day for a 12-hour shift) to work three months on and one month off unpaid on routes between Portsmouth, Weymouth and Poole and the Channel Islands, inclusive of overtime, additional pay and captive time. They have no entitlement to leave or a pension. Other ferry operators work for only one or two months at a time, with the same period of rest off the vessel.
.................................................. ........................................


RMT welcomes long-awaited introduction of Maritime Labour Convention

RMT media office

19 Aug (2 days ago)

Maritime union RMT has welcomed the long-awaited coming into force of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC) tomorrow - August 20. The union believes that this new legislation has the potential to make a genuine difference to the lives of seafarers.


Among the advantages that the MLC offers are:

• The potential to stop blacklisting and charging for jobs by some manning agents;

• The recognition of all crew - including hospitality crew on international cruise ships - as seafarers, who will now all get the same protections;

• Enhanced checks by port state control, including of pay problems such as double book-keeping; and

• The establishment of welfare facilities in ports, and of on-ship safety committees.


RMT general secretary Bob Crow said that blacklisting and social dumping had blighted the maritime sector for decades and the convention created the possibility to finally turn the tide in favour of seafarers as long as it is rigorously enforced and policed.

"This new legislation must be used to challenge the right of shipowners to exploit workers in their endless pursuit of profit regardless of the human cost it brings," he said.

International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) president Paddy Crumlin commented: "The MLC represents a significant leap forward in the global trade union campaign to improve the labour rights and labour standards of seafarers. It is a true watershed in international shipping, which adds the pillar of workers' rights to existing standards of safety, security and crew standards."

[Radio Spartacus]

Your invitation to join a race to the bottom will find few takers Jimmie. Anti immigrants or chauvinists or pro segregationalist or Pro Zionists do what they do. Face it Mass Migration is not a solution for anyone. How could we say with a straight face ,,,we have a million youth looking for work...import more labour is the answer. Dump our youth, leave them without hope? If we all desire social cohesion not the way.

Please stop dividing the international working class

[dodger]

Please stop dividing the international working class

http://think-left.org/tag/linda-kaucher/

The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy and worker’s rights.

[xxxxxx666666]

http://think-left.org/tag/linda-kaucher/

The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy and worker’s rights.

No it is not!!!:mad:

I'll tell you what's happening in the article "The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy and worker’s rights." (relinked to actually show the article)

http://think-left.org/2011/09/16/the-very-design-of-neoliberal-principles-is-a-direct-attack-on-democracy-and-workers-rights/


Basically, it's a companies trying to divide the working class into competing for lower wages so they can be hired and provide better economic value for capitalist to exploit them, but couched in terms that make it seems as if it's people who want and need jobs that's the problem.

In a nutshell it's saying: "Look working class people, if you don't accept these lower wages and conditions, we (the capitalist) will import people who will, and don't bother asking for better conditions because people will come that will accept lower conditions than you" but written in such a way as it make it look as if it's the problem of immigration.

[dodger]

No it is not!!!:mad:

I'll tell you what's happening in the article "The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy and worker’s rights." (relinked to actually show the article)

http://think-left.org/2011/09/16/the-very-design-of-neoliberal-principles-is-a-direct-attack-on-democracy-and-workers-rights/


Basically, it's a companies trying to divide the working class into competing for lower wages so they can be hired and provide better economic value for capitalist to exploit them.

In a nutshell it's saying: "Look working class people, if you don't accept these lower wages and conditions, we (the capitalist) will import people who will, and don't bother asking for better conditions because people will come that will accept lower conditions than you" but written in such a way as it make it look as if it's the problem of immigration.

A fair summary

[xxxxxx666666]

A fair summary

Glad to be of service to you;)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your invitation to join a race to the bottom will find few takers Jimmie.immigration laws are exactly what helps foster a race to the bottom. Well you unionists are going to have to give something up or else the company will hire a contractor who pays workers under the table/move to a right to work state/ relocate across the border.

They create lower castes of workers with few rights and animosity from other sectors of the workforce and then set groups against each other. The working class response must be to not side with the bosses and try and get a better position to compete against other workers from, it's not to side with the bosses in blaming Chinese labor, but solidarity on a class basis, rising the rights of the entire class because we are only as strong as our most vulnerable sections.

The logic of your argument that increased laborers means increased competition is flawed on a number of levels. First, if it's just a surplus of workers (something necessary for capitalism anyway) then why support restrictions on migrants? Why not oppose people from rural areas moving to urban ones? Why not support restrictions on working class births? Why not join sexists and demand that women are excluded from the workforce? I'd hope that you'd see the absurdity of these demands from a working class perspective, well joining in the calls for immigrant crack downs is the same.


Anti immigrants or chauvinists or pro segregationalist or Pro Zionists do what they do. Face it Mass Migration is not a solution for anyone. How could we say with a straight face ,,,we have a million youth looking for work...import more labour is the answer. Dump our youth, leave them without hope? If we all desire social cohesion not the way. migration to centers of capital and production is more or less a constant of capitalism, it happens within borders and without and the problem is not the movement, not some overpopulation of the labor supply, but the inter-class competition for jobs. Migration restrictions, once again, intensifies this competition and supporting it is in effect accommodating, not challenging, class competition for jobs.

Migration is not an answer or question, just a fact of capitalism, the only question is how society responds. More specifically for us, how should workers respond from a class perspective. And again, restrictions help the ruling class manage and divide labor, for native workers restrictions may seem like a way to maintain or protect a relative advantage, but this is short sighted at best. The answer as far as I'm concerned is that the wealth of the u.s. Or u.k. Is from the workforce and we need to fight to ensure that anyone working can fight together, can have the same rights and benefits or else the class as a whole becomes weaker and more easily manipulated.

As for social cohesion... I don't even know what that means in the context of class society. But I guess yes, supporting repression of parts of the work force does help cohere a layer of chauvinistic workers to identification with the ruling class.

[Per Levy]

well its not nice to beat a dead horse, so i will just be shocked that dodger didnt thank all of servusmodernis posts.

besides immigration laws help the devide and conquer stragety of the bourgeoisie, it devides us, it helps foster racist, nationalistic and chauvinistic attidutes in the working class. oh well other posters said more indept thngs to this topic.

[reb]

Why are these two not banned?

[Remus Bleys]

Why are these two not banned?

servusmoderni is banned i know. The explanation for why dodger isn't is apparently he is an "old friend" of some of the mlm people. Which is funny because Mao covered that Combat Liberalism.

[reb]

servusmoderni is banned i know. The explanation for why dodger isn't is apparently he is an "old friend" of some of the mlm people. Which is funny because Mao covered that Combat Liberalism.

Oh, I didn't see that he was banned. So why isn't dodger? He espouses the exact same ideas.

[Captain Red]

In what way does immigration hurt our unemployment? The reason we have so high unemployment in Sweden is because of our bourgeois government not because of immigration. Studies have shown that immigration greatly helps our economy especially when all immigrants are integrated into society and not pushed into ghettos. Actually Sweden's economy wouldn't survive without immigration due to our population decrease.

http://www.oecd.org/migration/migrationpickingupbutrisingunemploymenthurtingimmi grants.htm

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

servusmoderni is banned i know. The explanation for why dodger isn't is apparently he is an "old friend" of some of the mlm people. Which is funny because Mao covered that Combat Liberalism.

I have to ask, Why? Did I miss any racist or sexist remarks after the ones in the first post (which he apologized for)?


Migration is not an answer or question, just a fact of capitalism, the only question is how society responds. More specifically for us, how should workers respond from a class perspective.

Unless there is a strong enough workers movement that it includes all workers, there are bound to be many who feel they are being undercut by workers who sell their labor at a far lower rate, even if that isn't really the case at all.

[Remus Bleys]

because servusmoderni's posts reek of national bolshevism.

[Decolonize The Left]

This thread was incredible troll bait from post one. Animal pics should have been employed by the second page. I am disappointed...

[reb]

If the OP was an unrepentant anti-immigrant nationalist troll what does that make Dodger? An an unrepentant anti-immigrant nationalist fool?

[dodger]

If the OP was an unrepentant anti-immigrant nationalist troll what does that make Dodger? An an unrepentant anti-immigrant nationalist fool?

If anti slavery = anti slave then yes, dear Reb. Follow the link if you want to see prize fools. Teachers too. Small wonder the fires of nationalism are burning here. Brain Drain is an oft heard topic of conversation amongst students. Those committed to development. Anyhow the migrants can speak for themselves. Eloquent. They all have a story to tell.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/77039/recruiter-accused-of-offering-fictitious-u-s--jobs-to-hundreds-of-filipino-teachers

On Int’l Day Against Trafficking .......
Labor export policy is state-sponsored human trafficking

, 2013 at 5:17pm

On Int’l Day Against Trafficking .......
Labor export policy is state-sponsored human trafficking

Today, December 12, marks the International Day Against Trafficking. In commemoration, Migrante International called for justice for victims of human and labor trafficking. They were joined by victims, advocates, lawmakers and other sectoral groups in a press conference held at the House of Representatives.

According to Garry Martinez, Migrante International chairperson, human trafficking of Filipino workers, especially women, is still rampant and operating in record-high levels in the Philippines yet the accountability of perpetrators and their coddlers in government remains low. “Worse, the labor export policy, the government program that systematically and aggressively peddles cheap labor of our Filipino workers and professionals abroad, had become more entrenched and institutionalized especially under the present Aquino administration.”

Martinez said that since the passing of the Migrant Workers’ Act of 1995 (Republic Act 8042, amended by RA 10022), and the subsequent passing of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208), the Philippine government has become the top trafficker of its workers.

“The government’s labor export policy is the worst form of state-sponsored human trafficking of Filipinos. Under the Aquino administration, not one trafficker has been punished. Abusive recruitment agencies continue to operate and victimize Filipinos, ” MArtinez said.

Trafficked Filipinos to the US

Despite the US State Department’s upgrade of the Philippines from the Tier 2 Special Watch List to Tier 2 on its 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report, Migrante International and US-based National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON) today said that the Philippine government is still the number one human trafficker of its workers.

They presented cases of human trafficking of Filipinos to the US, namely the cases of trafficked teachers to Washington and the Florida 15 hotel workers (See attached case summaries). Martinez said that these cases demonstrate the complicity of some government agencies in human trafficking activities.

“In the US, the victims, direct- or agency-hires, all had approved job contracts that went through the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)”. MArtinez said that concerned government agencies are just as accountable as the Manila-based traffickers because “they were given license to operate”. He also said that the government has no mechanism to take action against the accomplices of the Manila-based recruiters in the US.

In the case of the Washington teachers, victims were asked to merely file estafa and illegal recruitment cases against their trafficker, Isidro Rodriguez (presently detained after an entrapment operation) when their counterparts in the US already have ongoing cases of human trafficking in court and were in fact granted T-Visas.

In the case of Florida 15 who have already filed human trafficking cases before the Department of Justice (DOJ)-chaired Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT), the burden of tracking the trafficker Jojo Villanueva (currently at large) lies on the victims themselves.

“Ang sistema kasi ng human traffickers sa ganitong mga kaso, kapag na-deploy na nila ang mga OFW, nagpapalit sila ng pangalan bago pa man sila ireklamo. Ang problema naman sa POEA, alam naman nilang ganito na ang modus operandi hindi pa rin nila nasusuplong kaya nakakapanloko pa ulit ang mga ito. Ang masaklap pa, dahil matagal na ngang kalakaran, malamang sa hindi ay may mga kakuntsaba na ang mga sindikatong ito sa loob ng gobyerno.”

Martinez said that the victims demand justice, compensation and the prosecution of their traffickers and accountability of government coddlers and concerned agencies. The victims are preparing to file a class suit at the IACAT on December 18, International Migrants’ Day.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1504036_10151819198831027_757097079_n.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Answer me this, dodger.

Why should workers face limitations on their mobility just because bosses are cheapskates?

Why not put pressure on bosses to pay immigrant workers the same as indigenous workers?

Both immigrant and indigenous workers are the ones losing out in this situation, so it makes no sense to go along with the narrative being provided by the same people who benefit from the current setup.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If anti slavery = anti slave then yes, dear Reb. Follow the link if you want to see prize fools. Teachers too. Small wonder the fires of nationalism are burning here. Brain Drain is an oft heard topic of conversation amongst students. Those committed to development. Anyhow the migrants can speak for themselves. Eloquent. They all have a story to tell.

Human trafficking is an absurd defense of your position because it is a black market created because of immigration restrictions and anti-immigrant sentiment in the population. Why wouldn't migrants being abused and super-exploited in these situations go to the u.s. Police, or try and agitate for higher wages.... Oh yeah, because deportions, detentions, etc.

Like pimps, people profiting off of migration do so generally because it has been pushed to the black market and migrants made invisible legally.

Why would I support full rights for migrants when possibly hundreds of people die in transport because of smuggling in bad conditions, or die in arid empty land along the u.s.-Mexico border? It's not migration that causes this death, it the legal restrictions and repression.

You need to get it out of your head that capitalist states can treat human migration as "policy". This is not the full picture or main driving force. Policy might encourage or discourage migration, but generally it just manages it in various ways (so this is how the debate is framed for me, how does society respond to migration in both directions). But in a system where capital concentrates itself around what's easy for profits, and at the same time populations must rearrange themselves to get wages, migration is driven and shaped by capitalism. In California, migration goes up and down with the booms and busts of the economy, immigrant laws historically have had little impact beyond controlling and terrorizing the immigrant workforce. This is why right-wing ant-immigrant vigilantes in the u.s. Have so often resembled the old kkk. Because their task is the same: to keep a group of low-wage and repressed workers "in their place" and prevent them from advocating for themselves.

[dodger]

Answer me this, dodger.

Why should workers face limitations on their mobility just because bosses are cheapskates?
.
Cannot answer that, perhaps an appeal to the better side of their nature. At $2 a day it will take a decade or more to migrate, from here. A curb on mobility, unless a job in the sex trade appeals. Sweat shops in Hong Kong/ South Korea. Domestic Servitude in China. Gulf States.


Why not put pressure on bosses to pay immigrant workers the same as indigenous workers?
Yes...but, but, but....if immigrant workers are willing to undercut? What then?The majority of jobs created in Britain over the past year have been filled by workers who were born in this country, official figures revealed .
It represents a dramatic reversal on Labour’s 13 years in power when there was a haemorrhaging of jobs to foreign workers.
Office for National Statistics figures show that three in four jobs have gone to workers born outside Britain since 1997, even hitting more than 90 per cent at times.
Of the 3.1million increase in employment since 1997, some 2.3million jobs went to foreign-born workers and just 794,000 went to those born in the UK.
Over the past year, employment levels in Britain have increased by 584,000, with 380,000 (65 per cent) going to British-born workers. The only colour employers recognise is what colour the bank notes are.


Both immigrant and indigenous workers are the ones losing out in this situation, so it makes no sense to go along with the narrative being provided by the same people who benefit from the current setup.

Noxion--that's what people are telling you. RMT for one. “The response of much of the ‘Left’, of most trade unions and the Labour Party, calling for equal conditions for migrant workers, is inadequate for many reasons but mainly that it is simply not working,” says the article. It adds that a Resident Market Labour Test would require renegotiating freedom of movement with the EU “on the grounds that it is overwhelmingly one-way and that the current situation is illegitimate” – and says that without renegotiation “the only way out is to leave the EU”.

Worldwide supplies of labour tip the scales away from workers towards capital. The EU aims to ensnare ever more, ever poorer, countries – Croatia (18 per cent unemployment), Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, countries across North Africa, and Turkey. Faced with this, the government’s Points Based System (PBS) actually brings in workers from outside the EU. Despite the government’s supposed cap, there are no limits on key PBS categories, such as transferees within the same corporation and foreign students (a major labour entry pathway with no exit monitoring).

Rmt's and any sensible worker regards all those working or seeking work and resident here as members of the British working class. I have never heard a whisper about paying migrants less, except from employers, Bank of England and UN, calling migration a tool for development. RMT has assisted many workers to get recognition and improvement in wages conditions, legal assistance with any status problems.

[Comrade #138672]

Worrying about "mass immigration" means succumbing to the logic of capital and embracing racist bourgeois ideologies. The proletariat has no interest in fighting "mass immigration". In fact, the racism can only hurt the proletariat.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Being anti-immigration does not necessarily mean a person has racist views, though there are many racists who justify their xenophobia with anti-immigrant logic.

[Comrade #138672]

Being anti-immigration does not necessarily mean a person has racist views, though there are many racists who justify their xenophobia with anti-immigrant logic.From an idealist point of view, the two may seem distinct from each other, because they are viewed in isolation. From a materialist point of view, however, being anti-immigration can only mean racism in practice, because the two are intimately related.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cannot answer that, perhaps an appeal to the better side of their nature. At $2 a day it will take a decade or more to migrate, from here. A curb on mobility, unless a job in the sex trade appeals. Sweat shops in Hong Kong/ South Korea. Domestic Servitude in China. Gulf States.

You're avoiding my question. You obviously seem to place the blame for depressed wages on the mobility of labour, rather than capital's willingness to pay people peanuts while simultaneously making use of the situation to divide workers against themselves.

Why?


Yes...but, but, but....if immigrant workers are willing to undercut? What then?

That's a bridge we'll cross when we come to it. As things stand at the moment, the power to set wages lies with the bosses, not the workers. Immigrant and indigenous alike. So if immigration depresses wages, the bosses are the ones to blame, not the workers.


The majority of jobs created in Britain over the past year have been filled by workers who were born in this country, official figures revealed .
It represents a dramatic reversal on Labour’s 13 years in power when there was a haemorrhaging of jobs to foreign workers.
Office for National Statistics figures show that three in four jobs have gone to workers born outside Britain since 1997, even hitting more than 90 per cent at times.
Of the 3.1million increase in employment since 1997, some 2.3million jobs went to foreign-born workers and just 794,000 went to those born in the UK.
Over the past year, employment levels in Britain have increased by 584,000, with 380,000 (65 per cent) going to British-born workers. The only colour employers recognise is what colour the bank notes are.

So why is it that in every thread on the subject of immigration that I've seen, you're the one thanking posts that misdiagnose the problem as being due to immigration, rather than shit wages?


Noxion--that's what people are telling you. RMT for one. “The response of much of the ‘Left’, of most trade unions and the Labour Party, calling for equal conditions for migrant workers, is inadequate for many reasons but mainly that it is simply not working,” says the article. It adds that a Resident Market Labour Test would require renegotiating freedom of movement with the EU “on the grounds that it is overwhelmingly one-way and that the current situation is illegitimate” – and says that without renegotiation “the only way out is to leave the EU”.

Blaming immigrants workers for their situation doesn't work either. Better to say and do the right thing and be ignored instead of going along with the dominant narrative put out by those with an interest in maintaining it.


Worldwide supplies of labour tip the scales away from workers towards capital. The EU aims to ensnare ever more, ever poorer, countries – Croatia (18 per cent unemployment), Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, countries across North Africa, and Turkey. Faced with this, the government’s Points Based System (PBS) actually brings in workers from outside the EU. Despite the government’s supposed cap, there are no limits on key PBS categories, such as transferees within the same corporation and foreign students (a major labour entry pathway with no exit monitoring).

This is still under "immigration is the problem" framing rather than "bosses are being tight gits" framing. It's still dividing the working class against itself.


Rmt's and any sensible worker regards all those working or seeking work and resident here as members of the British working class. I have never heard a whisper about paying migrants less, except from employers, Bank of England and UN, calling migration a tool for development. RMT has assisted many workers to get recognition and improvement in wages conditions, legal assistance with any status problems.

Whatever "good works" the RMT does, they will not efface any statements/actions on their part which go along with the ruling class perspective on immigration. It could be considered giving with one hand while taking away with the the other.

[Comrade Jacob]

I shouldn't be so amused watching the OP dig his hole deeper & deeper. Oh well, he gone now. LEL

[GerrardWinstanley]

Being anti-immigration does not necessarily mean a person has racist views, though there are many racists who justify their xenophobia with anti-immigrant logic.Perhaps not every person who opposes mass immigration is a racist, but most seem to arrive at their conclusions with racist logic - reasons including eugenicist concerns about population control, protecting wages and public services for the native (read: white) workforce, the 'demographic threat', essentialist generalisations about the native culture of the migrants in question and their responsibility for rising crime levels that don't exist... all stock fascist justifications for anti-immigrant politics.

I'm sure many Israelis are happy deprive Palestinians of their basic rights, not out of personal hostility to Arabs, but a belief that not doing so will threaten their national security and the safety of their family and children. The attitude is still racist.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Perhaps not every person who opposes mass immigration is a racist, but most seem to arrive at their conclusions with racist logic - reasons including eugenicist concerns about population control, protecting wages and public services for the native (read: white) workforce, the 'demographic threat', essentialist generalisations about the native culture of the migrants in question and their responsibility for rising crime levels that don't exist... all stock fascist justifications for anti-immigrant politics.

There are certainly people who believe in racial purity and oppose mass immigration on those grounds, but I think you discount somewhat the number of people who oppose immigration on economic grounds. For instance in the US there are many African Americans who oppose immigration largely due to what I would describe as economic concerns despite some racist sounding undertones. Where I live in California, not being bilingual could very well be a serious impediment at getting a "low skill" job (ie a job not requiring higher education or training). Fear of this is quite pronounced among many African Americans in Los Angeles, as is preserving historic sites tied to black history as the city moves towards being 60% hispanic.

I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying. I live 2 miles from Tijuana and am totally opposed to most border controls.


I'm sure many Israelis are happy deprive Palestinians of their basic rights, not out of personal hostility to Arabs, but a belief that not doing so will threaten their national security and the safety of their family and children. The attitude is still racist.

Do you oppose mass jewish emigration to Palestine?

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are certainly people who believe in racial purity and oppose mass immigration on those grounds, but I think you discount somewhat the number of people who oppose immigration on economic grounds. For instance in the US there are many African Americans who oppose immigration largely due to what I would describe as economic concerns despite some racist sounding undertones. Where I live in California, not being bilingual could very well be a serious impediment at getting a "low skill" job (ie a job not requiring higher education or training). Fear of this is quite pronounced among many African Americans in Los Angeles, as is preserving historic sites tied to black history as the city moves towards being 60% hispanic.yes in the us ethnic class competition has always been a hurdle. The black community specifically, but factory and machine and other blue collar work has been reorganized and job conditions are under attack. Immigration did not cause blue collar work to suffer, this was the effects of neoliberalism and manufacturing moving to the south or other places outside urban areas a generation ago. So how do you fight this, blame and try and shut out people you will be pitted against anyway, people who have the least control over the working and direction of the economy? Or do you fight the bosses and try and prevent them from eroding jobs that once supported a family? But to fight you need solidarity because if the Irish workers win, but exclude the Chinese workers, then the bosses will just pit the lower-paid workers against the higher paid ones and the higher paid ones will have to make concessions to stay "competitive".

But of course the economic motives are not divorced from racism, having health racist stereotypes and divisions is exactly how the economic divisions can be organized.


I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying. I live 2 miles from Tijuana and am totally opposed to most border controls. yes and a militant male worker on a picket line might say sexist or homophobic things, but if these sttitudes are reflected organizationally or allowed to be general sentiments, it will undermine the class effort.


Do you oppose mass jewish emigration to Palestine?yes as I oppose the mass colonization of other areas in the past. The right-wingers in the settlements are not moving there to be part of Palestine, to have the same rights and lives as people already lining there, they mean to take those tracts of land as mini colonies, little pieces of Israel. Filipino immigrants to the us are not setting up colonies backed by a military and political power which dictates terms to the countries the immigrants are moving to. Israeli settlers are not making their suburb outposts so they can find work as nannies for Palestinian families.

[Skyhilist]

Remind me why we give people like this attention.

[tallguy]

There isn't a discussion to elevate. Any mod reading this thread should trash it and ban you because you've turned it into a platform for your personal vendetta against revleft poorly disguised as a conversation about your bourgeois belief about immigration.
Fuck me, I've never come across a forum where such a large minority of posters consistently scream "Ban the witch" whenever anyone dares to go "off message". Obviously, if someone posts something illegal or otherwise unrelated to political debate, then that may represent a valid reason for sanction. But, that is rarely the kind of reason cited, from what I have seen, when someone hysterically demands such sanction be applied. This really does not make you look very confident in yourselves or your arguments, I am bound to say. Indeed, I would go further and suggest it makes you look decidedly cult-like in terms of the group-psychology going on here. I say that irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with either side of any particular argument.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Fuck me, I've never come across a forum where such a large minority of posters consistently scream "Ban the witch" whenever anyone dares to go "off message". Obviously, if someone posts something illegal or otherwise unrelated to political debate, then that may represent a valid reason for sanction. But, that is rarely the kind of reason cited, from what I have seen, when someone hysterically demands such sanction be applied. This really does not make you look very confident in yourselves or your arguments, I am bound to say. Indeed, I would go further and suggest it makes you look decidedly cult-like in terms of the group-psychology going on here. I say that irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with either side of any particular argument.

Don't care, fuck you. Doesn't matter what anyone cares about 'confidence'; the confidence in an argument is never relevant, nor are the arguments themselves; you do not convince people by arguments, people are convinced by their own discoveries, not by being told something, at most this can play a small role. This place isn't for debating with Nazis.

[#FF0000]

Fuck me, I've never come across a forum where such a large minority of posters consistently scream "Ban the witch" whenever anyone dares to go "off message".

Er, you haven't seen many (any) forums then and also cut your smug and self-satisfied bullshit because half of your posts on this forum are about how dogmatic everyone is except for you and it's extremely unhelpful.

[#FF0000]

There are certainly people who believe in racial purity and oppose mass immigration on those grounds, but I think you discount somewhat the number of people who oppose immigration on economic grounds

Man, this kind of thing isn't new in the slightest, though. This same kind of thing happened (is happening) across the country between different groups of working people. Saying that nativism is bullshit and anti-immigration stances are wrong isn't discounting or ignoring anything -- we're saying that it's a fatal mistake to identify immigrants as the group depressing wages when it's the capitalists that are doing that.

I mean, people go on and on about how immigrant labor depresses wages and displaces people economically (the latter of which is dubious to say the least), but why doesn't anyone say anything about the rise of temp labor and contractor services, who do the exact same thing except on an even greater scale, with people who are born or legally allowed to work "here".

EDIT: And the question that always comes up but never gets answered is how do you organize and agitate against immigration policies without alienating immigrant workers and without making immigrant workers the targets?

[Baseball]

Y


That's a bridge we'll cross when we come to it. As things stand at the moment, the power to set wages lies with the bosses, not the workers. Immigrant and indigenous alike. So if immigration depresses wages, the bosses are the ones to blame, not the workers.

Not really. If there is a surplus of labor, then the value of that labor is going to be less to the community than if there was a shortage of labor. It has nothing to do with capitalism or its "bosses."

This would be true in the socialist system as well. And it would make as much sense for the socialist community to devise systems to encourage needed labor to immigrate to a community ahead of lesser needed or unneeded labor as does capitalism.

Capitalism uses wages and salaries to allocate labor into needed areas, and away from unneeded or lesser needed areas.
How does socialism deal with labor immigrating (and emigrating)? Does it truly view all labor as equal in value?

[Baseball]

Migration is not an answer or question, just a fact of capitalism, the only question is how society responds. More specifically for us, how should workers respond from a class perspective. And again, restrictions help the ruling class manage and divide labor, for native workers restrictions may seem like a way to maintain or protect a relative advantage, but this is short sighted at best. The answer as far as I'm concerned is that the wealth of the u.s. Or u.k. Is from the workforce and we need to fight to ensure that anyone working can fight together, can have the same rights and benefits or else the class as a whole becomes weaker and more easily manipulated.

As for social cohesion... I don't even know what that means in the context of class society. But I guess yes, supporting repression of parts of the work force does help cohere a layer of chauvinistic workers to identification with the ruling class.

Why is it a "fact" of capitalism, as opposed to a generic "fact" of life? People moving about because they wish to.
Will people not move about in the socialist community? How do the workers in the socialist community respond to that?

[Radio Spartacus]

Fuck me, I've never come across a forum where such a large minority of posters consistently scream "Ban the witch" whenever anyone dares to go "off message". Obviously, if someone posts something illegal or otherwise unrelated to political debate, then that may represent a valid reason for sanction. But, that is rarely the kind of reason cited, from what I have seen, when someone hysterically demands such sanction be applied. This really does not make you look very confident in yourselves or your arguments, I am bound to say. Indeed, I would go further and suggest it makes you look decidedly cult-like in terms of the group-psychology going on here. I say that irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with either side of any particular argument.

The irony here is that I mention the poster was using the thread as a platform for their vendetta against the site, thinly veiled as a bullshit anti-immigrant thread. You're doing the same thing, just replacing the nationalistic sentiment with condescending crap about group psychology

I'm very confident in myself and my "argument", you little shit

[tallguy]

The irony here is that I mention the poster was using the thread as a platform for their vendetta against the site, thinly veiled as a bullshit anti-immigrant thread. You're doing the same thing, just replacing the nationalistic sentiment with condescending crap about group psychology

I'm very confident in myself and my "argument", you little shitSounds like I've hit a nerve there mister.

[Radio Spartacus]

Yes, a nerve that makes me calmly criticize what you said and make the cold logical statement that you are a little shit. Telling that you didn't defend your post on whatever merit you foolishly perceive it to have, troll.

You'll get no sympathy coming to a thread and irrelevantly rambling about your personal problems with the forum, this obviously isn't the place for your (pretty small minded) complaints and defense of a nationalist scumbag

[Comrade #138672]

I agree. Stop the trolling, tallguy, or you will probably get yourself banned like the TS.

[Sinister Intents]

Remind me why we give people like this attention.

We give these people attention because of reason to debate and possible nothing better to do.

[tallguy]

Yes, a nerve that makes me calmly criticize what you said and make the cold logical statement that you are a little shit. Telling that you didn't defend your post on whatever merit you foolishly perceive it to have, troll.

You'll get no sympathy coming to a thread and irrelevantly rambling about your personal problems with the forum, this obviously isn't the place for your (pretty small minded) complaints and defense of a nationalist scumbag
I'm not defending him. I'm attacking you.

[tallguy]

I agree. Stop the trolling, tallguy, or you will probably get yourself banned like the TS.Oh, so now we get the troll straw man do we? A sure sign of desperation in my experience.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not defending him. I'm attacking you.

What's the point in attacking someone on a forum?

[tallguy]

What's the point in attacking someone on a forum?
To be more precise, I am attacking his debating tactic of exhorting the mods to ban a member who post something that is presumably politically offensive to him. If he is so confident in his own position on a given debate, he should have no problem dealing with the arguments of those with whom he disagrees. This is a forum for political deabte, is it not? Or is it merely a wankathon for politically like-minded individuals to pleasure each other and anyone who dissents from the-group think is banished to the internet equivalent of Siberia? I have just copied and pasted, below, the tag line of this forum/section:


Opposing Ideologies Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*Do I really need to explain further?

[Sinister Intents]

To be more precise, I am attacking his debating tactic of exhorting the mods to ban a member who post something that is presumably politically offensive to him. If he is so confident in his own position on a given debate, he should have no problem dealing with the arguments of those with whom he disagrees. This is a forum for political deabte, is it not? Or is it merely a wankathon for politically like-minded individuals to pleasure each other and anyone who dissents from the-group think is banished to the internet equivalent of Siberia? I have just copied and pasted, below, the tag line of this forum/section:


Opposing Ideologies Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*

Do I really need to explain further?

Alright, this is a forum for political debate, but I feel things should stay civil. Also are you saying you're a reactionary with that? Perhaps explain further if you feel you must.

[tallguy]

Alright, this is a forum for political debate, but I feel things should stay civil. Also are you saying you're a reactionary with that? Perhaps explain further if you feel you must.Well, firstly, I am not the one hysterically screaming for the banning of a member every time someone goes off message as i have seen repeatedly occur here over the last two or three weeks i have been a member. So, if you want to discuss civil and reasoned debate, you may wish to start there

Also, define reactionary over and above the ordinary understanding of that word please, as I suspect you are using it in a specific political sense I may not be acquainted with. If you do, then I may be able to answer your question.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, firstly, I am not the one hysterically screaming for the banning of a member every time someone goes off message as i have seen repeatedly occur here over the last two or three weeks i have been a member. So, if you want to discuss civil and reasoned debate, you may wish to start there

Also, define reactionary over and above the ordinary understanding of that word please, as I suspect you are using it in a specific political sense I may not be acquainted with. If you do, then I may be able to answer your question.

Well the root of the word 'hysteria' is uterus, so I'd start with not using it, but many people don't know that. You could ignore users that do this, and I haven't seen many of your posts. Let's go with the definition of reactionary are right wing beliefs opposed to that of left wing, or could use the Wikipedia definition.

[tallguy]

Well the root of the word 'hysteria' is uterus, so I'd start with not using it, but many people don't know that. You could ignore users that do this, and I haven't seen many of your posts. Let's go with the definition of reactionary are right wing beliefs opposed to that of left wing, or could use the Wikipedia definition.
If you are defining reactionary as, broadly speaking, right wing, then I have no trouble in informing you I am the very antithesis of reactionary as you have so defined it. To be more specific, I wish to see the whole stinking pile of debt-ridden, slave-laboured system of capitalism smashed utterly and I am under no illusion whatsoever that it will take anything less than blood to achieve because the only thing the fuckers at the top of this system will ever understand is a wall against their backs and a fist in their face. what i am utterly uninterested in, however, is the kind of pathetic whining you have just engaged in about the linguistic root of a word. I mean really? Are you fucking serious? Is this what constitutes the obsessions of the revolutionary left these days? The politically correct derivations of word usage? No wonder we're fucked.

[Sinister Intents]

If you are defining reactionary as, broadly speaking, right wing, then I have no trouble in informing you I am the very antithesis of reactionary as you have so defined it. To be more specific, I wish to see the whole stinking pile of debt-ridden, slave-laboured system of capitalism smashed utterly and I am under no illusion whatsoever that it will take anything less than blood to achieve because the only thing the fuckers at the top of this system will ever understand is a wall against their backs and a fist in their face. what i am utterly uninterested in, however, is the kind of pathetic whining you have just engaged in about the linguistic root of a word. I mean really? Are you fucking serious? Is this what constitutes the obsessions of the revolutionary left these days? The politically correct derivations of word usage? No wonder we're fucked.

Reactionary is a broad word to define, I think, there are many things that are reactionary. It's great you hate capitalism as well, what are your thoughts on other things such as Mass Immigration? What about your ideas on the state? et cetera.
I was simply stating that the word has sexist roots, do some research. No I'm not being 'Politically Correct.'

[Vanguard1917]

Say what you like about 'tallguy', but anti-immigration sentiment, in one shape or another, is obviously very widespread, and so there's a lot of work to be done in terms of convincing people. There are very, very few people indeed who support a genuine 'open border' policy, i.e. people, such as myself, who oppose completely the powers of an imperialist state to police who can enter within its borders. Yes, we see a lot of sanctimonious liberal guardianista types who think they're pro-immigration (not like the 'ignorant' British working-class hordes who they hate), but they're also usually the first ones to defend policies to keep out people with whom they politically differ (members of racist parties in eastern Europe, homophobes from the West Indies, etc). Besides, their 'pro-immigration' stance is actually a thoroughly anti-immigration stance, since they most often tend to call merely for a relaxation of immigration law, not its complete abolishment.

Really, the immigration debate can't be won through liberal arguments. What makes it particularly difficult to put forward the socialist case for open borders is obviously the fact that socialist ideas currently stand discredited and have next to no purchase in pretty much any debate. We're left with an incoherent and hypocritical liberalism which large chunks of the masses find repulsive - and rightfully so.

[liberlict]

"Mass immigration" is relative isn't it, pardon the cliche. "Mass" compared to what? What is "normal" immigration? There's no "International Organisation for Immigration Quotas" (IOIQ, he ha). We are all emigrants from Africa if you trace the timeline back, or perhaps from primordial swamp.

Anyway, in my experience, not all immigrants are made the same. The Chinese and the Indians I've noticed to be hardworking and peaceful. Immigrants from war-torn African countries and some places in the Middle East have been brought up in violent and rapacious shit-holes and often don't change their behaviors just because they are in a new place.

Thus I tend to support immigration, but with more caution when it comes to countries whose cultural values are starkly different than our own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not really. If there is a surplus of labor, then the value of that labor is going to be less to the community than if there was a shortage of labor. It has nothing to do with capitalism or its "bosses."

This ignores the fact that there is a constant pressure on employers to lower wages, because they cut into profit margins.


This would be true in the socialist system as well. And it would make as much sense for the socialist community to devise systems to encourage needed labor to immigrate to a community ahead of lesser needed or unneeded labor as does capitalism.

Your point being?


Capitalism uses wages and salaries to allocate labor into needed areas, and away from unneeded or lesser needed areas.

Who defines what labour is "needed" under capitalism? Certainly not the workers!


How does socialism deal with labor immigrating (and emigrating)? Does it truly view all labor as equal in value?

Fuck value, that's a chimaera. Utility is the real measure of worth.

[Comrade #138672]

Oh, so now we get the troll straw man do we? A sure sign of desperation in my experience.I am just warning you. I definitely see it happening, if you keep this up. It has absolutely nothing to do with "desperation". If you would just stay on-topic, instead of provoking people, you would quickly find out that people are more than willing to refute your arguments.


Sounds like I've hit a nerve there mister.This sure looks like trolling to me. You are only provoking people and bashing most of the people here who are trying to be consistent socialists.

Your opposition to immigration is nothing more than opportunism. It has nothing to do with socialism or being pragmatic at all. It has everything to do with appealing to popular sentiments and following the logic of capital. You cannot smash capitalism this way. You are, in fact, merely reinforcing it.

If you are really sincere, which you claim to be, then please, re-consider your viewpoint, or at least try to stay on-topic while explaining your views.

[Baseball]

This ignores the fact that there is a constant pressure on employers to lower wages, because they cut into profit margins.

To keep costs as low as possible.
Socialism will also face pressure to keep costs as low as possible.




Your point being?

This whole thread has pivoted where basically anyone who questions immigration is a racist.
There are also claims as to immigration and its impact upon capitalism.

But there is no examination as to the impact of immigration on a socialist community.
The point I made is that the socialist community faces the same type of pressures (though I think magnified) which can effect a capitalist community.




Who defines what labour is "needed" under capitalism? Certainly not the workers!

Let us hope not! It would be a pretty sad state of affairs when the workers in a socialist community (ie as producers), or producers in any community, would decide what to and what not to produce.

In any rational community, such as a capitalist one, the consumers decide.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

To keep costs as low as possible.
Socialism will also face pressure to keep costs as low as possible.





This whole thread has pivoted where basically anyone who questions immigration is a racist.
There are also claims as to immigration and its impact upon capitalism.

But there is no examination as to the impact of immigration on a socialist community.
The point I made is that the socialist community faces the same type of pressures (though I think magnified) which can effect a capitalist community.





Let us hope not! It would be a pretty sad state of affairs when the workers in a socialist community (ie as producers), or producers in any community, would decide what to and what not to produce.

In any rational community, such as a capitalist one, the consumers decide.
And those without money to consume are fucked right? That's why tons of food are wasted every year while millions die of hunger.

[Comrade #138672]

"Mass immigration" is relative isn't it, pardon the cliche. "Mass" compared to what? What is "normal" immigration? There's no "International Organisation for Immigration Quotas" (IOIQ, he ha). We are all emigrants from Africa if you trace the timeline back, or perhaps from primordial swamp.

Anyway, in my experience, not all immigrants are made the same. The Chinese and the Indians I've noticed to be hardworking and peaceful. Immigrants from war-torn African countries and some places in the Middle East have been brought up in violent and rapacious shit-holes and often don't change their behaviors just because they are in a new place.

Thus I tend to support immigration, but with more caution when it comes to countries whose cultural values are starkly different than our own.So, what you are saying is that in contrast to Chinese and Indian people, African and Middle Eastern people are not-hardworking savages? Otherwise no caution would be needed, right?

Here we can clearly see how the anti-immigration stance leads to a racist attitude in practice.

[liberlict]

So, what you are saying is that in contrast to Chinese and Indian people, African and Middle Eastern people are not-hardworking savages? Otherwise no caution would be needed, right?

Here we can clearly see how the anti-immigration stance leads to a racist attitude in practice.

Yeah that's exactly what I was saying. Thanks for paraphrasing it so succinctly for me. :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it a "fact" of capitalism, as opposed to a generic "fact" of life? People moving about because they wish to.
Will people not move about in the socialist community? How do the workers in the socialist community respond to that?migration is pretty constant in human society and especially before urban communities when people migrated due to environmental, seasonal, or resource factors. But migration of the Dort being discussed here is a fact of capitalism because capitalism needs a large labor pool, divorces agricultural communities from the land, and workers (landless, capital-less people) need to go to where jobs are. So people in Zimbabwe migrate to South Africa, rural people in china migrate to Chinese cities, rural people in the Americas move to cities or go to other American countries. So, in general people move, nation states and borders are recent constructs; but specifically migration for economic reasons and needing wages are inherent in capitalism. And when there isn't a large labor pool, capitalists will try and create one.

I'd assume that people in a post-capitalist society would also move and I would hope we'd have far greater mobility in that sense than today so that people would be able to travel. I don't really see how it would be an issue to "deal with" because people wouldn't be in competition and living arrangements would be based on a good life as possible, as opposed to being determined by the profit motive and restricted by wealth inequality (causing cramped living, many roommates, homelessness, overcrowded areas for the poor etc).

The goal of our efforts in such a society would be to improve our lives, so urban development would be organized to meet our needs and desires and not the needs of profit. Today it's the opposite, so capital moves and is invested according to making profits even if that means having to bring in a large labor pool or conversely, moving industries and causing the communities and population built up around those industries to rot.

[tallguy]

I am just warning you. I definitely see it happening, if you keep this up. It has absolutely nothing to do with "desperation". If you would just stay on-topic, instead of provoking people, you would quickly find out that people are more than willing to refute your arguments.

This sure looks like trolling to me. You are only provoking people and bashing most of the people here who are trying to be consistent socialists.

So you are "warning" me are you? Oooohhh scary..I think I may just need to go and change my pants.

I am on topic. Just not in the prescribed way in which you would prefer. Tough. And attempting to label anything you don't like as "trolling" is, frankly, pathetic.


Your opposition to immigration is nothing more than opportunism. It has nothing to do with socialism or being pragmatic at all. It has everything to do with appealing to popular sentiments and following the logic of capital. You cannot smash capitalism this way. You are, in fact, merely reinforcing it.Bullshit, you have simply applied to me your own assumptions about my motivations that's all. I couldn't give a flying fuck about popular sentiments. i am only interested in the truth, as hard as that is to establish.


If you are really sincere, which you claim to be, then please, re-consider your viewpoint, or at least try to stay on-topic while explaining your views.To repeat, I am on topic. If you don't agree with what I have said then state explicitly the point of disagreement and we can debate that. Don't expect me to show anything other than utter contempt, however, at your pathetic whining.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To keep costs as low as possible.
Socialism will also face pressure to keep costs as low as possible.

Cost in what terms? Money wouldn't exist, and who cares about the amount of energy used so long as it is used sustainably (so we can keep doing it) and efficiently (so we have more to use for other things).


This whole thread has pivoted where basically anyone who questions immigration is a racist.
There are also claims as to immigration and its impact upon capitalism.

But there is no examination as to the impact of immigration on a socialist community.
The point I made is that the socialist community faces the same type of pressures (though I think magnified) which can effect a capitalist community.

Socialist societies would be better placed to deal with effects of migration, because they would not share with capitalism the political and economic structures with inherently perverse incentives that lead to exploitation and environmental degradation.

Whatever will drive migration under a socialist society, it won't be the same as what drives migration under a capitalist society.


Let us hope not! It would be a pretty sad state of affairs when the workers in a socialist community (ie as producers), or producers in any community, would decide what to and what not to produce.

Why ever the fuck not? They're the ones actually doing the work, after all. Should they not be free to set the parameters of their labour?


In any rational community, such as a capitalist one, the consumers decide.

Funny joke, calling capitalism "rational", what with its monomaniacal pursuit of profit at the expense of individuals and society. Oh, you were serious? It's tragic that you're either so delusional that you think repeating such obvious crap is at all convincing, or so dedicated to trolling us that you're willing to make yourself look like a total arse.

You still don't fucking get it, do you? Producers and consumers in a socialist society are the one and same, they are producer-consumers whose economic role is not artificially divided into an alienated dichotomy. Do you really in all seriousness think that in our capitalist society, the majority of people actually want to eat poor quality food, wear poor quality clothes, and live in poor quality housing because that's what they truly desire, and not because economic circumstances have forced them to make certain choices?

[greenforest]

Because immigration and emigration should be free for everyone, not controlled by anyone at all. Also your use of the word 'retard' in the previous post I find offensive because I have what is known as Asperger's.

So you have objections to nations - such as the Soviet Union and Arab world - preventing Jews from emigrating on the basis that they were moving to Israel?

Would you have opposed Britain's restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 1930's?

I ask mostly out of curiosity/thought experiment b/c many in support of the Palestinian cause - and celebrated amongst some Leftists - hold these views, including Joseph Massad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you have objections to nations - such as the Soviet Union and Arab world - preventing Jews from emigrating on the basis that they were moving to Israel?this question has already been raised in this thread in a slightly different way.



Do you oppose mass jewish emigration to Palestine?yes as I oppose the mass colonization of other areas in the past. The right-wingers in the settlements are not moving there to be part of Palestine, to have the same rights and lives as people already lining there, they mean to take those tracts of land as mini colonies, little pieces of Israel. Filipino immigrants to the us are not setting up colonies backed by a military and political power which dictates terms to the countries the immigrants are moving to. Israeli settlers are not making their suburb outposts so they can find work as nannies for Palestinian families.

In short there's a big difference between migration of people either seeking jobs and a living in a society where they have no power, and colonization. If someone is fleeing antisemetiem in Eastern Europe but has bought into the myth that Israel is the only option, then they are not really the source of problems in regards to colonization and Zionist ideology. But if someone moves to settlements, displaces people and harasses and intimidates the remaining Palestinian population, then they are not a migrant, joining in a new society or area, but a colonizer, backed by an oppressive and brutal state.

French colonizers moved to Algeria not to become Algerians, but to make everyone else French. This power dynamic is very different than migration in the sense of debates on immigration.


Would you have opposed Britain's restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 1930's?again, this is a strange way to look at this. Who would have restricted Jewish immigration? A colonial government. They only supported or discouraged immigration when it suited their interests. So the antisemites in the uk government ended up supporting Zionism which promised to help keep imperial interests protected.

In the abstract there is nothing wrong with people wanting the flee antisemetiem, and abstractly there's no difference between people going to the uk, us, or Palestine, and yet there are real differences when issues of colonization and Zionism come in.

[greenforest]

They only supported or discouraged immigration when it suited their interests. So the antisemites in the uk government ended up supporting Zionism which promised to help keep imperial interests protected.When were the British supporting Zionism when they were banning Jewish immigration to Palestine by the late 1930's?

Anyway, I'm curious what the position on those supporting bans on the free movement of Jews in the Soviet Union and Middle East here is, exactly.

Good or bad to restrict their freedom to emigrate?


But if someone moves to settlements, displaces people and harasses and intimidates the remaining Palestinian population, then they are not a migrant, joining in a new society or area, but a colonizer, backed by an oppressive and brutal state.Well, there were some settlements in the 1930's, but these were bought legally.

In any event, how do you screen Jews from emigrating b/c they might immediately or eventually go to Israel and possibly live on a settlement?

[Rurkel]

When were the British supporting Zionism when they were banning Jewish immigration to Palestine by the late 1930's?
The point, I think, was that they alternated between support and non-support as they saw fit.


Anyway, I'm curious what the position on those supporting bans on the free movement of Jews in the Soviet Union and Middle East here is, exactly.
So far, I hadn't seen anyone supporting the ban exactly. At worst, there was an attempt to evade the question.

As for me, the Soviet closed borders policy, combined with the semi-official antisemitism, was indeed undefendable. However, migration to settlements includes other aspects then just migration (like discrimination against people of Palestinian Arabic ethnicity), making the settlements and Israeli policies also undefendable.

[greenforest]

^ There were ethnic tensions prior to the establishment of the state of Israel as a result of Jewish immigration; it was the reason the British restricted Jews from immigrating to Palestine.

The entire episode resulted in a war and conflict that lasts to this day. Seems pretty obvious that history in the region would be far different if mass immigration hadn't been allowed.

The posters previously calling for open and absolute immigration w/o restriction of any type don't seem eager to address the posters against immigration to Palestine/Israel.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It must be said that Jewish emigration to Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel, and perhaps for several years after, is completely incomparable with the immigration laws of the contemporary Israeli state. The generation that largely either survived the concentration camprs or managed to avoid them seems to have as much a right as anyone to migrate to an area that isn't being run by the Nazis. And in light of such a situation, it would make a lot of sense to go where the jewish community would be strongest. Consider also that many migrated there because it was their only option when deciding to flee Europe prior to the war,

That cannot be compared to Israel's policy of allowing unrestricted immigration to Jews, and Jews only. Many Palestinian refugees who were born in Palestine have been denied the right to be buried in the current borders of Israel, let alone allow the return from exile for the living Palestinian diaspora.

[Sinister Intents]

^ There were ethnic tensions prior to the establishment of the state of Israel as a result of Jewish immigration; it was the reason the British restricted Jews from immigrating to Palestine.

The entire episode resulted in a war and conflict that lasts to this day. Seems pretty obvious that history in the region would be far different if mass immigration hadn't been allowed.

The posters previously calling for open and absolute immigration w/o restriction of any type don't seem eager to address the posters against immigration to Palestine/Israel.

I don't know too much about the history of this. Under communism there are no borders no states, I don't wish to restrict anyone who wants to immigrate or emigrate. It's that individuals choice to immigrate or emigrate, and under communism it would more simply be people moving since borders would cease to exist and nations would cease to exist to control the borders. If you're asking if I'm against Zionism, then the answer is yes, I'm against the existence of a theocratic state, I'm against all nations and states.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The posters previously calling for open and absolute immigration w/o restriction of any type don't seem eager to address the posters against immigration to Palestine/Israel.

I think Jimmie Higgins adequately explained the difference between immigration and colonisation.

[#FF0000]

The posters previously calling for open and absolute immigration w/o restriction of any type don't seem eager to address the posters against immigration to Palestine/Israel.

*posts a thing and leaves*
*comes back and doesn't look at thread*

"well i guess no one wanted to address my stupid point heh heh"

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Wow. Phil Robertson would be proud!:laugh:

(I'm talking about the guy who started this thread. "Apes"? Really?

[Jimmie Higgins]

they only supported or discouraged immigrantion...When were the British supporting Zionism when they were banning Jewish immigration to Palestine by the late 1930's?please re-read what I wrote. I was speaking of who has the power in the situation... Colonizers do not have the same relationship to where they move than migrants or tourists or the other reasons people go from here to there for.

Anyway, I'm curious what the position on those supporting bans on the free movement of Jews in the Soviet Union and Middle East here is, exactly.huh? If someone says that Jews in Eastern Europe should not be allowed to migrate because they are Jewish, then they are supporting antis emetic measures, if someone is against settlers coming in and terrorizing people off their land, then they are against colonization. If they are only against colonization because the people involved are Jewish, then they are not really opposed to colonization, they are just bigoted fucks.


Good or bad to restrict their freedom to emigrate?bad.


In any event, how do you screen Jews from emigrating b/c they might immediately or eventually go to Israel and possibly live on a settlement?that's idiotic. Who screens? What the hell are you talking about? Bring opposed to colonization efforts is not the same as people opposing economic or environmentally driven migrants. Someone might migrate to the u.s. And then join a far right extremist group, but it has noting to do with migration in general.

You are attempting to point out some hypocrisy or something, but you are incorrect because being anti-Zionism doesn't mean not wanting Jews to live or move to Palestine whereas supporting Zionism does mean supporting heavy and repressive measures by a majorly military power to control and manage the daily movement mobility and migration of Palestinian people. It would be inconsistent to oppose migration restrictions AND support Israeli policies.


The entire episode resulted in a war and conflict that lasts to this day. Seems pretty obvious that history in the region would be far different if mass immigration hadn't been allowed.

The posters previously calling for open and absolute immigration w/o restriction of any type don't seem eager to address the posters against immigration to Palestine/Israel.mass immigration was not the problem, colonization was. Jewish migrants also had conflicts with the British along with the Palestinians. If Jewish political forces in Palestine had allied with the existing population rather than the British rulers, then migration could have happened in a much different way.

[Baseball]

I'd assume that people in a post-capitalist society would also move and I would hope we'd have far greater mobility in that sense than today so that people would be able to travel. I don't really see how it would be an issue to "deal with" because people wouldn't be in competition and living arrangements would be based on a good life as possible, as opposed to being determined by the profit motive and restricted by wealth inequality (causing cramped living, many roommates, homelessness, overcrowded areas for the poor etc).

The goal of our efforts in such a society would be to improve our lives, so urban development would be organized to meet our needs and desires and not the needs of profit. Today it's the opposite, so capital moves and is invested according to making profits even if that means having to bring in a large labor pool or conversely, moving industries and causing the communities and population built up around those industries to rot.

Ok-- so you really don't see migration occurring in the socialist community. To the extent that it does happen, its no big deal.

[Baseball]

Cost in what terms? Money wouldn't exist, and who cares about the amount of energy used so long as it is used sustainably (so we can keep doing it) and efficiently (so we have more to use for other things).

Cost in the sense of using as few resources as possible while producing as much as possible.
The use of labor would be part of such calculation-- hence the question about the impact of migration upon the socialist community.


Why ever the fuck not? They're the ones actually doing the work, after all. Should they not be free to set the parameters of their labour?

Because the work exists to satisfy somebody else's want or need. The parameters of that labor need to be designed accordingly. The work doesn't exist to give somebody something to occupy his or her time.



You still don't fucking get it, do you? Producers and consumers in a socialist society are the one and same, they are producer-consumers whose economic role is not artificially divided into an alienated dichotomy. Do you really in all seriousness think that in our capitalist society, the majority of people actually want to eat poor quality food, wear poor quality clothes, and live in poor quality housing because that's what they truly desire, and not because economic circumstances have forced them to make certain choices?

This isn't Hogwarts. There are no magic wands to wave.

And a workers council is no substitute; "All in favor of better housing say aye..." Then what???

[Comrade #138672]

Cost in the sense of using as few resources as possible while producing as much as possible.
The use of labor would be part of such calculation-- hence the question about the impact of migration upon the socialist community.I suppose, but more immigrants would also mean increased capacity for productive activities. In that sense, it wouldn't really be an issue in socialist society, as opposed to capitalist society, which is all about profits.


Because the work exists to satisfy somebody else's want or need. The parameters of that labor need to be designed accordingly. The work doesn't exist to give somebody something to occupy his or her time.But why would this matter in socialist society? More immigrants means more needs, but also more productive capacities. Socialism transcends the petty limitations of capitalism, because it doesn't rely on maximizing profits. Socialism isn't capitalism with a "fairer" distribution; it's an entirely new mode of production.


This isn't Hogwarts. There are no magic wands to wave.

And a workers council is no substitute; "All in favor of better housing say aye..." Then what???What's wrong with worker's councils?

[greenforest]

mass immigration was not the problem, colonization was. Jewish migrants also had conflicts with the British along with the Palestinians. If Jewish political forces in Palestine had allied with the existing population rather than the British rulers, then migration could have happened in a much different way.How would mass migration happen differently to avoid conflict between Arabs and Jewish immigrants?

I don't recall Jewish political forces siding w/ the British rulers, as the British favored Arabs.

Success from Jews siding w/ the Arabs may have been limited as certain Arab political powers wanted the Jews expelled since at least the 1930's.

The general consensus I have gleaned from the pro-Palestinian Left is that mass Jewish immigration was the source of ethnic tension in Palestine; perhaps the reason why Joseph Massad did not view Soviet and Middle Eastern governments restricting Jewish movement as problematic.

[Baseball]

I suppose, but more immigrants would also mean increased capacity for productive activities.

Then one returns to the larger issue as to how the socialist community distinguishes between productive and unproductive activities.
Are migrants who have no training in productive activities, as defined by that socialist community a benefit, a drain, or neutral to the socialist community?

[Comrade #138672]

Then one returns to the larger issue as to how the socialist community distinguishes between productive and unproductive activities.
Are migrants who have no training in productive activities, as defined by that socialist community a benefit, a drain, or neutral to the socialist community?Do not underestimate what (immigrant) workers are capable of. Also, with the development of the socialist mode of production, the productivity would be very high, requiring (almost) no socially necessary labor-time to fulfill the needs of society.

I think that even without training (and in socialist society everybody could and would receive training), it would be hard for (immigrant) workers not to provide a "benefit".

[Baseball]

Do not underestimate what (immigrant) workers are capable of. Also, with the development of the socialist mode of production, the productivity would be very high, requiring (almost) no socially necessary labor-time to fulfill the needs of society.

I think that even without training (and in socialist society everybody could and would receive training), it would be hard for (immigrant) workers not to provide a "benefit".

Its not a question of skepticism of what immigrants can and cannot do.
The question is what the socialist community does or does not do.

Yes-- the socialist community can offer training- at the cost of other needed activities. Maybe such a cost is worth it. Maybe not.
Because after all the labor of those immigrants may not be needed by the socialist community, no matter how well trained they may be.

[Comrade #138672]

Its not a question of skepticism of what immigrants can and cannot do.
The question is what the socialist community does or does not do.

Yes-- the socialist community can offer training- at the cost of other needed activities. Maybe such a cost is worth it. Maybe not.
Because after all the labor of those immigrants may not be needed by the socialist community, no matter how well trained they may be.Socialism is not about maximizing profits like capitalism. Socialism does not eject workers and does not deem them "unnecessary" like capitalism does. The point is: socialism can absorb immigrants easily.

[#FF0000]

How would mass migration happen differently to avoid conflict between Arabs and Jewish immigrants?

I think this is a dumb way to frame things, because there's going to be conflict between people no matter what, because people don't always get along perfectly. It doesn't matter if it's "mass immigration" or a new family moving in down the street -- the potential for some conflict between people is always there. I mean, christ, I live in the United States and the river of tears you get from people in the places I used to live about people from New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Tennessee is insane.

I guess we should stop interstate travel in the US since it might cause conflict :ohmy:


The general consensus I have gleaned from the pro-Palestinian Left is that mass Jewish immigration was the source of ethnic tension in Palestine; perhaps the reason why Joseph Massad did not view Soviet and Middle Eastern governments restricting Jewish movement as problematic.You gleaned that because for some reason you think a bunch of people moving to another place to work and live is the same as a bunch of people moving to another place with the intention of setting up political and social hegemony. Taking your view, there's no difference between the Irish and Italian immigrants that flocked to the United States and the Conquistadors of Spain.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You gleaned that because for some reason you think a bunch of people moving to another place to work and live is the same as a bunch of people moving to another place with the intention of setting up political and social hegemony. Taking your view, there's no difference between the Irish and Italian immigrants that flocked to the United States and the Conquistadors of Spain.

The generation of Jews which emigrated to Palestine and became the founders of the Israeli state where refugees fleeing Hitler.

If anything the Arabs who opposed mass immigration of Jews in the 1930s seem to hold just as reactionary viewpoint as the Israelis do today. The Palestinians started an armed rebellion to try and keep the Jews out in the 1930s, and though that was fought against an Imperialist power it seems undeniable from most historical accounts that the revolt was launched to stop the Jewish influx into Palestine.

My point here is not that the Arabs were necessarily wrong or that this somehow redeems Israels policies. I can understand why the Arabs would be scared of such a large influx of foreigners emigrating into their country. Not that I agree with or condone their decisions, but I can understand. Like I can understand how, in a somewhat similar situation, fascists in eastern europe would be gaining popularity due to the influx of syrians.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The local leader of Ataka, a pugnacious, far-right party, Mr. Bozhinov lost his seat in the town council at the last municipal elections in 2011 but now sees his fortunes rising thanks to public alarm over an influx of Syrian refugees across the nearby frontier.

Membership of the local branch of Ataka, he said, had surged in recent weeks as “people come up to me in the street and tell me that our party was right.” Ataka, which means attack, champions “Bulgaria for Bulgarians” and has denounced Syrian refugees as terrorists whom Bulgaria, the European Union’s poorest nation, must expel. An Ataka member of Parliament has reviled them as “terrible, despicable primates.”

With populist, anti-immigrant parties gathering momentum across much of Europe, Ataka stands out as a particularly shrill and, its critics say, sinister political force — an example of how easily opportunistic groups can stoke public fears while improving their own fortunes....

“We are not a party of xenophobes,” he said. “But Bulgaria has lots of poor people of its own that need taking care of before refugees.”
Syrian refugees, many of whom passed into Bulgaria after paying at least $550 each to people smugglers in Istanbul, say they have no desire to stay here, but European Union rules require that they seek asylum in the country where they are first registered and fingerprinted.

The refugees, who mostly dreamed of getting to Germany or Sweden, say they never expected Europe to be like this. “This country is too poor,” complained Mohammed Hussein, a 24-year-old Syrian who has spent the last six weeks confined to a former military base at Harmanli, a desolate town near Svilengrad. “It is like living in a prison,” he said.

Nikolai Tchirpanliev, a retired army colonel recently appointed to head the state agency charged with taking care of the refugees, said that the Syrians had helped wear out their welcome by complaining too much about stinking, clogged toilets and other problems in the camps and holding centers.

“It is like when the Huns came to Europe,” he said, comparing the influx of Syrians to the wild, nomadic warriors who conquered much of Eastern Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries. Amnesty International and other groups that criticize conditions, he said, should stop condemning the Bulgarian authorities and “ask, ‘Why don’t these people know how to use toilets?' ”
Speaking of which, here come the brown shirts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/world/europe/far-right-gains-as-syrians-reach-eastern-europe.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cost in the sense of using as few resources as possible while producing as much as possible.
The use of labor would be part of such calculation-- hence the question about the impact of migration upon the socialist community.

Seems to me that in a socialist society, immigration would mean a greater availability of labour and therefore the ability to do more. Especially if the productive potential of that labour is not being limited by abysmal economic circumstances.


Because the work exists to satisfy somebody else's want or need. The parameters of that labor need to be designed accordingly. The work doesn't exist to give somebody something to occupy his or her time.

What about the wants and needs of the worker? Are they irrelevant?


This isn't Hogwarts. There are no magic wands to wave.

What's so magical about the fact that people who make things are the same people who consume things?


And a workers council is no substitute; "All in favor of better housing say aye..." Then what???

Then people get better housing?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok-- so you really don't see migration occurring in the socialist community. To the extent that it does happen, its no big deal.i think migration and travel would continue but on a different basis. I don't think it would be an issue because communities would be organized around the needs of the community, including those who want to join it, not the needs of private profits. When migrants come somewhere today they are fleeing economic or war situations or leaving to get work. If people migrated in a socialist society it would not be due to these pressures, it would because people want to travel or meet new people etc.

The so-called problems of immigration are due to the present organization of society, workers must compete, immigrant enclaves can be crowded, but these are not "neutral" issues of overcrowding, they are issues of a market based society.

[Baseball]

i think migration and travel would continue but on a different basis. I don't think it would be an issue because communities would be organized around the needs of the community, including those who want to join it,

OK-- so its entirely plausible that a socialist community would place walls up against immigrants. I mean, choices have to be made by the community. It cannot be all things to all people.


not the needs of private profits. When migrants come somewhere today they are fleeing economic or war situations or leaving to get work. If people migrated in a socialist society it would not be due to these pressures, it would because people want to travel or meet new people etc.

Travelling about is different.
Why wouldn't people emigrate to find work? Surely, you do not claim that all work, in a socialist community, is equal to all other work? A socialist community has to make choices in production which may not be agreed by many of the workers involved.

[Baseball]

Seems to me that in a socialist society, immigration would mean a greater availability of labour and therefore the ability to do more. Especially if the productive potential of that labour is not being limited by abysmal economic circumstances.

Certainly--- more available labor can be directed in many ways.
So a socialist community would need more labor in order to be able to be more successful in its objectives?
But isn't one of the objections to capitalism by socialists is that it constantly needs to find new labor in order to be successful in its objectives?



What about the wants and needs of the worker? Are they irrelevant?

This is a different issue. A job exists because somebody else needs that work completed. That has to be the measurement of success.
It doesn't mean that the personal desires of the worker is irrelevent. It means it can't control the job.




What's so magical about the fact that people who make things are the same people who consume things?

How many cars do the autoworker consume? statistically, probably 0%.




Then people get better housing?

No. Then action has to be undertaken, choices and priorities made.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My point here is not that the Arabs were necessarily wrong or that this somehow redeems Israels policies. I can understand why the Arabs would be scared of such a large influx of foreigners emigrating into their country. Not that I agree with or condone their decisions, but I can understand. Like I can understand how, in a somewhat similar situation, fascists in eastern europe would be gaining popularity due to the influx of syrians.again, the issue is not the neutral migration of people. Tensions existed not because of an influx of people or an influx of Jews specifically, but the colonization. Rich Palestinians were happy for the migration because the Jewish enclave was buying up land at inflated prices, but then this also caused problems... For poor people first but then even the local rich, but in a different way. The issue was not the number of migrants, but the land being bought which made surrounding land more expensive which led to more absentee rich landowners and struggling smaller ones to also sell. Once the land was sold, the poor no longer had access to producing on it or getting hired and so people became displaced not because of population factors, but because of land and property issues.

Syrians are not buying up semi-peasant lands, backed by the largest empire. They are not displacing Eastern Europeans, they are at most causing downward pressure on wages because they might be desperate enough to accept really low wages. The fascists are probably getting some resonance in their message because of this completion, but their ideology is based in a desire to maintain a certain social caste order and to manage those with less power that they see as an outside threat. Fascist ideology is usually driven by a desire to manage and discipline the unruly masses and order society. They may think the refugees have some power over them, but that is a delusion. For poor agricultural Palestinians, English power and the buying of land by Zionist groups actually did have meaningful power over them, so your analogy just simply doesn't work.

It would be like arguing that afghans who want the USSR or us troops out are driven by xenophobia. The anger may become xenophobic or take that form, but the driving force of the anger is not an influx of people, but the relationships of those people to the rest of society (an occupational military force in this example).

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK-- so its entirely plausible that a socialist community would place walls up against immigrants. I mean, choices have to be made by the community. It cannot be all things to all people.i don't think this is plausible in any but the most extreme circumstances like if a meteor hit a major population center and suddenly millions of survivors had to rush to neighboring tiny towns who had also just suffered floods and so their food and water supplies were disrupted. Yes, it would need to be that ridiculous because we live in a society of abundance where each person produces more wealth than they each consume.... And in the bigger picture we all produce more wealth than we consume: hence all the UN reports about how everyone could be fed and then some despite starvation being common.

So if tens of thousands of people all wanted to move to one area, well then that area might need some more people to build homes and perform services and so on, yes? Well then it's a good thing they just got a lot of new people to help then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Certainly--- more available labor can be directed in many ways.
So a socialist community would need more labor in order to be able to be more successful in its objectives?

That would depend on how "success" is being defined. If one community's measure of success is to reduce the amount of hours worked in a day without impacting productivity, then it would make sense for them to acquire more workers in order to spread out the workload more. But then again, they could do that through other means if necessary, e.g. increased automation of the work process.


But isn't one of the objections to capitalism by socialists is that it constantly needs to find new labor in order to be successful in its objectives?

I suppose it is, but a socialist economy wouldn't "constantly need" cheap new labour.


This is a different issue.

No it is not. Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, they take place in the same economic reality. To divorce the two arbitrarily is to distort the whole process, as happens under capitalism. That's part of why mountains of frivolous crap gets produced while millions go without adequate support, despite the fact that there are enough resources for both.


It doesn't mean that the personal desires of the worker is irrelevent. It means it can't control the job.

Why not? Barring the invention of artificial intelligence, workers are essential to the process of production. If the decision-making process fails to reflect that, as happens under capitalism, you get workers who might do the work out of economic necessity, but who would otherwise not give a damn beyond that, and why should they?


How many cars do the autoworker consume? statistically, probably 0%.

When you're done pulling statistics out of your arse, perhaps you can reflect on the fact that all workers need (and therefore have a direct interest in maintaining) a functioning system of transportation (including cars and their attendant roadways) to do their work? Also, who do you expect to have the better knowledge about car production, the people who actually do the damn work - design, assembly, and shipping - (and who are thus the best qualified through actual experience to be making the decisions), or some besuited know-nothing with an MBA fresh out of business school, who in comparison knows next to nothing about the design, assembly and shipping of motor vehicles?

One of the manifold absurdities of capitalism is that it puts the former under the command of the latter. Lions led by asses!


No. Then action has to be undertaken, choices and priorities made.

Yes, and don't you think the people involved would already know that as a matter of course? There's more to building housing than just saying "get it done", but ask a glib question you'll get a glib answer.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

How do you call someone who's against immigration for economical reasons?

It can't be racism nor xenophobia. But there must be a name, since you're still putting yourself above foreigners.

[Aurorus Ruber]

How do you call someone who's against immigration for economical reasons?

It can't be racism nor xenophobia. But there must be a name, since you're still putting yourself above foreigners.

How does justifying your privilege through economic self-interest (as opposed to scientific racism or whatever else you have in mind) not constitute racism or xenophobia?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

How does justifying your privilege through economic self-interest (as opposed to scientific racism or whatever else you have in mind) not constitute racism or xenophobia?
Because xenophobia is fear of foreigners and racism is about race and ethnicity.

A person against immigration doesn't necessarily mean he's a racist since it isn't because of his race nor xenophobe because he doesn't fear them.
It's more fear of diminishing his own quality of life because of them. (less jobs, lower wages, because foreigners accept everything).

I'm against borders, this is just some of their reasoning, and I don't think it's fair to call it those names. If you think it is, why?

[Baseball]

That would depend on how "success" is being defined. If one community's measure of success is to reduce the amount of hours worked in a day without impacting productivity, then it would make sense for them to acquire more workers in order to spread out the workload more. But then again, they could do that through other means if necessary, e.g. increased automation of the work process.



I suppose it is, but a socialist economy wouldn't "constantly need" cheap new labour.

But why not? Maybe they changed their definition of success?




No it is not. Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, they take place in the same economic reality. To divorce the two arbitrarily is to distort the whole process, as happens under capitalism. That's part of why mountains of frivolous crap gets produced while millions go without adequate support, despite the fact that there are enough resources for both.

Yes.. two separate issues. You are now talking about distribution issues.




Why not? Barring the invention of artificial intelligence, workers are essential to the process of production. If the decision-making process fails to reflect that, as happens under capitalism, you get workers who might do the work out of economic necessity, but who would otherwise not give a damn beyond that, and why should they?

The worker in the socilaist community who has done is job... has done his job. If he has spent four or six or eight on an assembly line earnestly laboring he is done all that is expected of him. Why ask more?




When you're done pulling statistics out of your arse, perhaps you can reflect on the fact that all workers need (and therefore have a direct interest in maintaining) a functioning system of transportation (including cars and their attendant roadways) to do their work?

and...?


Also, who do you expect to have the better knowledge about car production, the people who actually do the damn work - design, assembly, and shipping - (and who are thus the best qualified through actual experience to be making the decisions), or some besuited know-nothing with an MBA fresh out of business school, who in comparison knows next to nothing about the design, assembly and shipping of motor vehicles?

But what does car design have to do with car distribution? Its an entirely different endeavor. Just because there are people who can build a car doesn't meant there are people who actually want that car. Just like there was once people who can build a typewriter doesnt mean there were people who wanted a typewriter.
In both cases, the latter ought control production, not the former.

[Sinister Intents]

Fuck you baseball. Honestly why are you here? You're obviously too reactionary.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Fuck you baseball. Honestly why are you here? You're obviously too reactionary.You're being very constructive here.

[the debater]

I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something, but when it comes to immigration, for me personally, race/ethnicity is not a major problem at all, and that's due to the fact that I believe the races are equal IQ-wise. What can cause concern for me is immigrants who do hold extreme religious viewpoints, for obvious reasons. And I do believe that immigrants need to assimilate into their new home country as quickly as is possible/convenient. I haven't really run into problems with immigrants where I'm at. Mostly Hispanics, and at my university, the professors are incredibly diverse. There's a tall West African man who teaches chemistry, a few Chinese professors here and there, a Hungarian, a Romanian, I believe a Russian, and an Algerian who I believe speaks 4 languages? And these are just for the most part professors I've had.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But what does car design have to do with car distribution? Its an entirely different endeavor. Just because there are people who can build a car doesn't meant there are people who actually want that car. Just like there was once people who can build a typewriter doesnt mean there were people who wanted a typewriter.
In both cases, the latter ought control production, not the former.

Yeah but what does marketing/capitalist distribution have to do with car use? There are people who want cars but can't afford the ones they are making. So it's not use demand that controls production as you claim, but exchange, profit, that controls production and this isn't very efficient for meeting use-needs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But why not? Maybe they changed their definition of success?

Why not what?


Yes.. two separate issues. You are now talking about distribution issues.

They're not separate. Distribution without production is meaningless, and production without distribution is useless.


The worker in the socilaist community who has done is job... has done his job. If he has spent four or six or eight on an assembly line earnestly laboring he is done all that is expected of him. Why ask more?

Because the notion of "just doing one's job" is born out of the alienation of wage-labour.


and...?

And therefore workers in the area of transportation (which would include car manufacture) have a direct impact on such matters, and therefore a greater responsibility. "Just doing one's job" is an abdication of that responsibility. Understandable under capitalism where workers are alienated and have little formal control, not so much under socialist economies.


But what does car design have to do with car distribution? Its an entirely different endeavor.

A lot, if you were to actually think about it. See my earlier point about distribution and production.


Just because there are people who can build a car doesn't meant there are people who actually want that car. Just like there was once people who can build a typewriter doesnt mean there were people who wanted a typewriter.

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here? I thought your position was that production under capitalism is demand-led? Therefore whence typewriter production?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something, but when it comes to immigration, for me personally, race/ethnicity is not a major problem at all, and that's due to the fact that I believe the races are equal IQ-wise. What can cause concern for me is immigrants who do hold extreme religious viewpoints, for obvious reasons. And I do believe that immigrants need to assimilate into their new home country as quickly as is possible/convenient. I haven't really run into problems with immigrants where I'm at. Mostly Hispanics, and at my university, the professors are incredibly diverse. There's a tall West African man who teaches chemistry, a few Chinese professors here and there, a Hungarian, a Romanian, I believe a Russian, and an Algerian who I believe speaks 4 languages? And these are just for the most part professors I've had.
Actually there are many studies saying Blacks IQ < Whites IQ < Asians IQ
And Jew's were somewhere on the high scale too.
But of course, we don't know it can be connected to other factors than race.

However I admit I saw in a racist site that there have been studies that removed poverty out of the equation and black Americans scores lower than white ones. But that same site argued that Portuguese empire got destroyed because the Portuguese people started to mix with the Africans and argued that countries like Iceland had high quality of life because of their high numbers of white population, so I wouldn't take them too seriously.

I don't see how it is relevant in real life, but I don't like to see pretty sentences like ' I believe the races are equal IQ-wise.' when there's no evidence of it, quite the contrary.

[Baseball]

Yeah but what does marketing/capitalist distribution have to do with car use? There are people who want cars but can't afford the ones they are making. So it's not use demand that controls production as you claim, but exchange, profit, that controls production and this isn't very efficient for meeting use-needs.

Yes, there are people who want cars but can't afford ones now. But all that means is that consuming their resources in pursuit of car is not as high a priority as consuming their resources for other goods.
The socialist community also can't consume all of its resources in the production of cars- even if there was "use value" in doing so. It would have to make a determination as to what point automobile production would have to be curtailed so other needed goods could be produced. The only rational way it could have to make that decision would be to determine at what point that the benefits to it of consuming resources to produce other goods is greater than the benefits of consuming resources to continue to produce cars.
In other words, the decision would have to be based upon what is more profitable to the community.

[Baseball]

Why not what?

Why it would not need "cheap labor."




Because the notion of "just doing one's job" is born out of the alienation of wage-labour.

Hang on a second, here. Socialists often claim that by eliminating certain capitalist jobs (banking, finance ect) frees up people to work in what is truly valuable. It has been claimed on this thread that a socialist community could benefit by immigration because it would allow the existing workers to work fewer hours at their jobs ie. more available workers
So somebody is working an eight hour day in the auto factory. This person works conscientiously and decently on the assembly line, doing his fair share in meeting the "use value" needs of automobiles in the community. As a result of immigration, this person can now work six hours a day.
Fine.
But it is also claimed that the expectation of this person is beyond simply working six hours on the assembly line.




And therefore workers in the area of transportation (which would include car manufacture) have a direct impact on such matters, and therefore a greater responsibility. "Just doing one's job" is an abdication of that responsibility. Understandable under capitalism where workers are alienated and have little formal control, not so much under socialist economies.

But if workers are spending their time doing their work diligently, then how can you say they are not being responsible? If their job is to maintain the machinery in the auto factory, and the machines are being properly maintained, then they have done their job.

Rather than burdening that worker with additional hours of labor and study of distribution strategies, more efficient production techniques ect. (which would dilute his or her mastery of all, consequently making that community all the more poorer), why not simply deploy different workers to master those particular needs of production and distribution?




I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here? I thought your position was that production under capitalism is demand-led? Therefore whence typewriter production?

Substitute desktop computers for typewriters. The principle still holds.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why it would not need "cheap labor."

Because it makes no sense. Certain tasks or projects may require specified types or quantities of labour (e.g. construction requires both architects and labourers), but cheapness doesn't come into it.


Hang on a second, here. Socialists often claim that by eliminating certain capitalist jobs (banking, finance ect) frees up people to work in what is truly valuable. It has been claimed on this thread that a socialist community could benefit by immigration because it would allow the existing workers to work fewer hours at their jobs ie. more available workers
So somebody is working an eight hour day in the auto factory. This person works conscientiously and decently on the assembly line, doing his fair share in meeting the "use value" needs of automobiles in the community. As a result of immigration, this person can now work six hours a day.
Fine.
But it is also claimed that the expectation of this person is beyond simply working six hours on the assembly line.

No, what is claimed is that during those six hours, more than mere assembly takes place (work which the machines will be doing most of anyway). The worker will be coordinating their activities with their colleagues, both on the assembly line and elsewhere.


But if workers are spending their time doing their work diligently, then how can you say they are not being responsible? If their job is to maintain the machinery in the auto factory, and the machines are being properly maintained, then they have done their job.

Worker self-management means being more than a cog in a machine.


Rather than burdening that worker with additional hours of labor and study of distribution strategies, more efficient production techniques ect. (which would dilute his or her mastery of all, consequently making that community all the more poorer), why not simply deploy different workers to master those particular needs of production and distribution?

Because that would already be the case? "Distribution strategies" would be the domain of workers responsible for transportation and shipping, while "more efficient production techniques" would likely involve cooperation between the people designing the assembly lines and those working on them.


Substitute desktop computers for typewriters. The principle still holds.

What principle? Under capitalism it's a waste of money mass producing things that nobody (or near enough) is willing to pay for, and in a socialist economy it's a waste of energy and resources, and I doubt that people would be willing to basically throw their labour away. If it's pointless to produce, then surely it's also pointless to distribute, or do you maintain that production has nothing to do with distribution?

[Baseball]

Because it makes no sense. Certain tasks or projects may require specified types or quantities of labour (e.g. construction requires both architects and labourers), but cheapness doesn't come into it.

Of course it does. Why have a highly trained architect do general labor?




No, what is claimed is that during those six hours, more than mere assembly takes place (work which the machines will be doing most of anyway). The worker will be coordinating their activities with their colleagues, both on the assembly line and elsewhere.

OK-- and how is "use value" of time of such coordination determined, as opposed to doing the actual work?




Worker self-management means being more than a cog in a machine.

Which means what? A worker can do his job and still not do his job?




Because that would already be the case? "Distribution strategies" would be the domain of workers responsible for transportation and shipping,

That's fine-- the worker on the assembly line is not responsible for whether that vehicle gets to its needed objective. Its not his job.
So what else is he supposed to be doing, and why?


while "more efficient production techniques" would likely involve cooperation between the people designing the assembly lines and those working on them.

More efficient for whom? the designers of the assembly line? The workers on the assembly line?
Or the people who need the vehicles?




What principle? Under capitalism it's a waste of money mass producing things that nobody (or near enough) is willing to pay for, and in a socialist economy it's a waste of energy and resources,

Resources are going to be consumed in production. How does the socialist community know that resources being consumed in its production are being wasted versus being judiciously and properly consumed?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course it does. Why have a highly trained architect do general labor?

I don't know, why do you ask? Somebody has to design the building that labourers help to build. That's what architects would do.


OK-- and how is "use value" of time of such coordination determined, as opposed to doing the actual work?

I'm happy to leave that detail to the workers in question. See my final paragraph as to why.


Which means what? A worker can do his job and still not do his job?

No. It means just that. Workers share the responsibility of production amongst themselves because it's necessary to complete the work, rather than following orders because they've been told to do it and need the money.


That's fine-- the worker on the assembly line is not responsible for whether that vehicle gets to its needed objective. Its not his job.
So what else is he supposed to be doing, and why?

Organising his workspace? Liaising with co-workers and workers in other departments concerning matters of mutual interest? Being delegated to represent the workplace on a regional/global level? Showing the ropes to new workers?

Basically, anything that needs to be done that is necessary for assembly, but which isn't assembly.

Look, I've worked on an assembly line. Even under capitalist conditions the transmission of knowledge from more experienced workers to less experienced ones makes for a better production team. You talk as if workers were automatons, dumbly beavering away like a series of identical little robots. The fact is it ain't like that, and I suspect you are being disingenuous in presenting it so.


More efficient for whom? the designers of the assembly line? The workers on the assembly line? Or the people who need the vehicles?

I don't see any of those as necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, efficiency for the assembly worker would seem to be directly correlated with efficiency for those needing the vehicles.


Resources are going to be consumed in production. How does the socialist community know that resources being consumed in its production are being wasted versus being judiciously and properly consumed?

Through a variety of methods. Can manufacturing machinery be made more efficient (less waste heat, reduction and recovery of waste materials, and so on)? How can more be done with less, labour-wise? What are the best transportation and distribution options for the good or service in question? What is the best balance between product protection during transit and storage, and saving resources on packaging?

Answering those kind of questions would seem to be the obvious way of resolving the matter. The specifics would depend on the industry in question.

[the debater]

I don't see how it is relevant in real life, but I don't like to see pretty sentences like ' I believe the races are equal IQ-wise.' when there's no evidence of it, quite the contrary.

Huh? :confused: Do you disagree with the studies I posted in Anti-Fascism? I tried my best to find sources and links that were reliable/legitimate in dispelling, or at least shedding new light on, racial IQ differences. When blacks are put into similar environments as whites, they've been shown to have statistically identical IQs.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Huh? :confused: Do you disagree with the studies I posted in Anti-Fascism? I tried my best to find sources and links that were reliable/legitimate in dispelling, or at least shedding new light on, racial IQ differences. When blacks are put into similar environments as whites, they've been shown to have statistically identical IQs.
I missed that, could you provide me with the link for the topic or post?

edit: Forget it, found it, it's the whole topic on sticky.
I'll read it.

[Baseball]

Through a variety of methods. Can manufacturing machinery be made more efficient (less waste heat, reduction and recovery of waste materials, and so on)? How can more be done with less, labour-wise? What are the best transportation and distribution options for the good or service in question? What is the best balance between product protection during transit and storage, and saving resources on packaging?

Answering those kind of questions would seem to be the obvious way of resolving the matter. The specifics would depend on the industry in question.


Could be. However, then again making machinery more efficient itself requires the consumption of resources. Are consuming those resources worth the savings accrued in the manufacturing by using that machinery?
Don't know how the socialist community would know.

How would the socialist community know whether to transport by train or truck? Or a combination of both? By fuel consumption (but again,fuel is going to be consumed no matter what. Is it true that ALWAYS using less fuel is always better?)?

And how could the specifics be left simply to the industry in question? The metal workers don't simply ship their production to the auto workers-- the toy makers need it also.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, there are people who want cars but can't afford ones now. But all that means is that consuming their resources in pursuit of car is not as high a priority as consuming their resources for other goods.
The socialist community also can't consume all of its resources in the production of cars- even if there was "use value" in doing so. It would have to make a determination as to what point automobile production would have to be curtailed so other needed goods could be produced. The only rational way it could have to make that decision would be to determine at what point that the benefits to it of consuming resources to produce other goods is greater than the benefits of consuming resources to continue to produce cars.
In other words, the decision would have to be based upon what is more profitable to the community.no, you see profit as a neutral "good" or are using it in the sense of "benifits" rather than an increase in exchange value.

Capitalism only cares about the exchange value and it is generally good at doing that, but from other perspectives this becomes a problem when it comes to the not exchange-value befit it of this Sort of production.

What would be "profitable" or beneficial for a community of democratic, mutual producers would be different that what would be beneficial for private profits. Clear cutting is beneficial for private profits, but not beneficial for the community compared to sustainable and planned resource use. Monoculture crops on large swaths of land is efficient from an exchange value perspective, it's not efficient for the farm labor being sprayed with pesticides only necessary because of the monoculture; not efficient in terms of energy because the products are then shipped all over the world, etc.

Yes people would prioritize just like today, except the priorities would not be based on what best helps concentrate wealth for a few... Any priorities based on profit and private competition are bound to be short-sighted and downplay the priorities of those working to produce things.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Could be. However, then again making machinery more efficient itself requires the consumption of resources. Are consuming those resources worth the savings accrued in the manufacturing by using that machinery?
Don't know how the socialist community would know.

These kinds of thing can be determined through measurement, so I don't know why you keep acting like it's some kind of impenetrable mystery. And if it is, then market mechanisms certainly aren't going to be able to unveil it either! Since markets can only tell you what is profitable, not what is most efficient at its function or has the least environmental impact or whatever.

Waste heat can be measured. Fuel consumption can be measured. Weight of packaging used can be measured. Indeed I would not be surprised if that kind of thing was already being done today, except in the service of making businesses more profitable.

Even today we have environmental impact assessments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment)! Except that in a socialist society there would be no incentive to fudge or disregard the results in order to keep up the rate of profit.


How would the socialist community know whether to transport by train or truck? Or a combination of both? By fuel consumption (but again,fuel is going to be consumed no matter what. Is it true that ALWAYS using less fuel is always better?)?

It may well be the case that for certain goods, speed of delivery is more important than fuel efficiency. Perishables, for example.

But again, that certainly seems to me to be an obvious point, and not some intractable problem that would leave a socialist economy floundering (especially since delivery times are even easier to measure than fuel consumption), as you appear to be insinuating in your endless repetition of the same tired old point again and again in different guises.


And how could the specifics be left simply to the industry in question? The metal workers don't simply ship their production to the auto workers-- the toy makers need it also.

There'll be enough for both, like there is now. Quite apart from the total quantity of metal, there is also the question of type and grades of metal. The kind of metals used in toys will need to have different qualities to the metals used in high-impact industrial machinery.

Also, toys have more flexibility in terms of available materials, as they can be made out of wood, plastic, cloth and rubber as well as metal. Hell, if you include computer programs and games then they can even be made out of software!

[Baseball]

These kinds of thing can be determined through measurement, so I don't know why you keep acting like it's some kind of impenetrable mystery. And if it is, then market mechanisms certainly aren't going to be able to unveil it either! Since markets can only tell you what is profitable, not what is most efficient at its function or has the least environmental impact or whatever.

Waste heat can be measured. Fuel consumption can be measured. Weight of packaging used can be measured. Indeed I would not be surprised if that kind of thing was already being done today, except in the service of making businesses more profitable.

I am sure you would agree: Fuel will be consumed in a socialist community, waste heat will occur in a socialist community and packages will continue to have weight in a socialist community.
How would the socialist community know whether the benefits of a particular production is worth the cost of its fuel (or any other resource) consumption?




It may well be the case that for certain goods, speed of delivery is more important than fuel efficiency. Perishables, for example.

Certainly. But, then again, delivering those perishables requires fuel consumption. Which goes back again to knowing whether delivering those perishables are worth the cost of that fuel.



Quite apart from the total quantity of metal, there is also the question of type and grades of metal. The kind of metals used in toys will need to have different qualities to the metals used in high-impact industrial machinery.

Yep-- quite the headache for the metalworkers-- which types of metals to devote their resources upon, and why; why are the needs of the people who want toys greater or lesser than those who want cars?


Also, toys have more flexibility in terms of available materials, as they can be made out of wood, plastic, cloth and rubber as well as metal.

Yep-- the toyworkers could simply choose plastics or wood as a substitute for metal.
Of course, wood and plastics are needed in other goods as well. Simply telling the toyworkers to use plastic instead of metal doesn't solve anything-- it just pushes the problem somewhere else.

[Baseball]

What would be "profitable" or beneficial for a community of democratic, mutual producers would be different that what would be beneficial for private profits. Clear cutting is beneficial for private profits, but not beneficial for the community compared to sustainable and planned resource use.

The community utilizing such sustainable and planned resource use would be basing their choices on whether the resource in question returns to them a greater benefit than cost, of resources.


Monoculture crops on large swaths of land is efficient from an exchange value perspective, it's not efficient for the farm labor being sprayed with pesticides only necessary because of the monoculture; not efficient in terms of energy because the products are then shipped all over the world, etc.

Can't grow too many bananas in the northeast USA. Either people there will never see a banana again, after the socialist revolution, or the socialist community will have to be able to figure out whether the use of fuel shipping bananas there is worth it.

Resources are going to be consumed during production in the socialist community. However, consumption of resources is not, by itself, proof as to the efficiency, or not, of that production.

[liberlict]

Interesting issue Baseball and ÑóẊîöʼn. I think this regards the problem of handling a globally fragmented economy without price signals. I just created a thread about this if anyone is interested. Coordination in an economically fragmented world (http://www.revleft.com/vb/coordination-economically-fragmented-t186188/index.html?p=2703782#post2703782)

[Jimmie Higgins]

The community utilizing such sustainable and planned resource use would be basing their choices on whether the resource in question returns to them a greater benefit than cost, of resources.yes and the basis of that decision would be fundamentally different because "use" would be the criteria, not exchange value. As it is things with little use value but high exchange value are prioritized; factories are shuddered when there is still use value but from a profit standpoint it might be better to sit on capital or pull it from one area to another. This makes sense from a profit basis, but not from any other.


Can't grow too many bananas in the northeast USA. Either people there will never see a banana again, after the socialist revolution, or the socialist community will have to be able to figure out whether the use of fuel shipping bananas there is worth it.yes some resources will be confined to where they appear in nature, but this does not explain the surface illogical ordering of world production from a non-profit perspective, specifically monoculture style modern ag. Bananas and coffee and wine grapes may only grow in certain areas, but only capitalist motives explain why corn is shipped to Mexico from the u.s. While Mexican farmers loose their livelyhoods or rice is grown in California and shipped to china.


Resources are going to be consumed during production in the socialist community. However, consumption of resources is not, by itself, proof as to the efficiency, or not, of that production.what I've attempted to argue is that the basis of these decisions today are not abstractly beneficial or efficient, only in terms of profit, which causes all sorts of problems and "inefficiencies" like booms and busts and inequality. These decisions, however, could be done on a different basis, one of mutual planning, production, and decision-making.

[Baseball]

yes and the basis of that decision would be fundamentally different because "use" would be the criteria, not exchange value. As it is things with little use value but high exchange value are prioritized; factories are shuddered when there is still use value but from a profit standpoint it might be better to sit on capital or pull it from one area to another. This makes sense from a profit basis, but not from any other.

yes some resources will be confined to where they appear in nature, but this does not explain the surface illogical ordering of world production from a non-profit perspective, specifically monoculture style modern ag. Bananas and coffee and wine grapes may only grow in certain areas, but only capitalist motives explain why corn is shipped to Mexico from the u.s. While Mexican farmers loose their livelyhoods or rice is grown in California and shipped to china.

what I've attempted to argue is that the basis of these decisions today are not abstractly beneficial or efficient, only in terms of profit, which causes all sorts of problems and "inefficiencies" like booms and busts and inequality. These decisions, however, could be done on a different basis, one of mutual planning, production, and decision-making.


It would seem that rice grown in California and shipped to China is proof of that "use-value." Somebody in China has "use" of that rice.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It would seem that rice grown in California and shipped to China is proof of that "use-value." Somebody in China has "use" of that rice.
Yes to have any exchange value, something must also have "use" value of some sort. But people eating bread made with mud or sawdust doesn't mean that bread and sawdust are nutritious, it just means they are hungry enough that it's better than nothing.

Exchange value explains California growing rice for china, but use value doesn't explain it because rice can be grown in china. If it were just use value which determined things, than walmart's would not replace mom and pops because they provide the same use value... Walmart is successful because their model is more profitable, not because more use value is provided than a bunch of shops on Main Street carrying the same goods. If it were just use value, than u.s. Produced dehydrated milk which takes more resources than local dairies would not be pushing Dairy farmers out of business in Latin America.

Not that small shops are better capitalism, my point is simply what any capitalist would know instinctively, use in the abstract is a much lesser consideration than exchange, profits. When the housing bubble burst did the homes being sat on by banks loose their "use" or was it simply that their exchange values deflated and so banks waited until the market recovered?

[Baseball]

Exchange value explains California growing rice for china, but use value doesn't explain it because rice can be grown in china.

California grown rice has "use value" in China because apparently there are people who prefer it to Chinese grown rice.


If it were just use value which determined things, than walmart's would not replace mom and pops because they provide the same use value

Not necessarily true. Mom & Pop stores mean multiple trips and multiple stops to get the same things as one stop at a Wal-mart. Perhaps one stop is more useful than many stops.

[Venas Abiertas]

California grown rice has "use value" in China because apparently there are people who prefer it to Chinese grown rice.

Baseball, it's not the people of China who prefer California rice. They just buy whatever is on the shelves. They probably have no idea where their products come from, just like most of us.

Decisions to import or export certain products to certain countries are often political. They are more related to adjusting trade balances or making friends and dependents out of other countries than to practical considerations of whether or not those products could be generated domestically or should be bought from other countries. In that sense, those decisions are frequently anti-economic.


Not necessarily true. Mom & Pop stores mean multiple trips and multiple stops to get the same things as one stop at a Wal-mart. Perhaps one stop is more useful than many stops.

How much of what the consumers buy at Walmart is really necessary? We buy things based on a perceived sense of need as often as for a real sense of need. Capitalist advertising is a huge business dedicated to manufacturing an artificial desire for products that we don't really need and can even be harmful for us. People shopped for centuries at Mom-and-Pop stores or at farmers markets and they got everything they needed there. I live in a country that until about 15 years ago had no shopping malls, fast-food outlets, or "big-box" stores and I did just fine. And I and millions of others didn't go into debt charging to our credit cards a bunch of junk that we don't need anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

California grown rice has "use value" in China because apparently there are people who prefer it to Chinese grown rice.yes, people for which profit trumps any other consideration. Really, Preference? No it's industrial ag in California having low wage labor (so china can't really compete in this one sector at least), subsidies direct and indirect (roads and infrastructure), trade deals and so on. I'm really not a fan of the whole local food thing (yuppie lifestyle feel good bs IMO) but I think where they are correct is that local food that doesn't need to be shipped, engineered to sit on shelves and in boxes, is probably going to be fresher. Actually a lot of the localist critiques aren't far off -- just their answer seems to be enclaves of fresh food for urban swells. But I digress.


Not necessarily true. Mom & Pop stores mean multiple trips and multiple stops to get the same things as one stop at a Wal-mart. Perhaps one stop is more useful than many stops.ha ha yes, this is why I specifically said shops on Main Street. Small shops tend to group together - sometimes into districts - and people seemed to manage fine... In fact they had even more free time back then. But it is true and I think it's part of the appeal of Walmart (though you often have to drive waaaay the hell out to get to one and walking those parking lots is like walking through half of some towns). I think there are things that are actually really efficient about walmart's model beyond just a profit perspective. Centralization like that does save labor and needless repetition of tasks compared to a lot of little atomized locations selling the same goods. Why have 10 shops with 1 person stocking and one at the register each when you can have one big shop with half as many people working? But in the profit system the only efficiency that matters is producing profits. So this centralization becomes a centralization of wealth, rather than accomplishing things with less effort making our lives easier, it just makes fewer people work harder for less.

[Baseball]

yes, people for which profit trumps any other consideration. Really, Preference? No it's industrial ag in California having low wage labor (so china can't really compete in this one sector at least), subsidies direct and indirect (roads and infrastructure), trade deals and so on.

The result of which is Chinese farmers can produce things other than rice.


I'm really not a fan of the whole local food thing (yuppie lifestyle feel good bs IMO) but I think where they are correct is that local food that doesn't need to be shipped, engineered to sit on shelves and in boxes, is probably going to be fresher.

Its going to have to be shipped to people who live in cities.
And again-- I like bananas and a system which can't figure out a way to ship bananas...




ha ha yes, this is why I specifically said shops on Main Street. Small shops tend to group together - sometimes into districts - and people seemed to manage fine... In fact they had even more free time back then. But it is true and I think it's part of the appeal of Walmart (though you often have to drive waaaay the hell out to get to one and walking those parking lots is like walking through half of some towns). I think there are things that are actually really efficient about walmart's model beyond just a profit perspective. Centralization like that does save labor and needless repetition of tasks compared to a lot of little atomized locations selling the same goods. Why have 10 shops with 1 person stocking and one at the register each when you can have one big shop with half as many people working? But in the profit system the only efficiency that matters is producing profits. So this centralization becomes a centralization of wealth, rather than accomplishing things with less effort making our lives easier, it just makes fewer people work harder for less.

Well, if Wal-mart uses 5 workers rather than 10 and accomplishes the same objective, this means there are 5 workers who can do other things. Which means workers elsewhere may have additional labor to make things easier on them. Wal-mart is more profitable and labor is directed in a more appropriate direction. A win/win for all.

[Baseball]

Baseball, it's not the people of China who prefer California rice. They just buy whatever is on the shelves. They probably have no idea where their products come from, just like most of us.

And...?


Decisions to import or export certain products to certain countries are often political. They are more related to adjusting trade balances or making friends and dependents out of other countries than to practical considerations of whether or not those products could be generated domestically or should be bought from other countries. In that sense, those decisions are frequently anti-economic.

In the socialist community, such considerations will not exist.
Are you sugesting that in such a society, people will never have the opportunity to consume rice grown on the other side of Pacific Ocean, and that such an event is positive?




How much of what the consumers buy at Walmart is really necessary? We buy things based on a perceived sense of need as often as for a real sense of need. Capitalist advertising is a huge business dedicated to manufacturing an artificial desire for products

I do not intend to sound rude here, but who are you tell people what they need, what they should "use"?
Capitalist production does not create an "artificial desire" for goods, but rather discovers needs and wants that were unknown.

[Venas Abiertas]

OK, let's go through your post in reverse.

A common canard thrown against socialists is that we want to tell people what they can or can't do, buy, sell, or produce.

Socialists want a rational, intelligent use of our resources, both natural and human. We want economic decisions to be made on the basis of their utility for everyone, not just those who have enough money. We even recognize that the consumption (or over consumption) of certain goods may have harmful consequences for others.

For example, the most rational way for people to get to work is by using public transportation. We would have less environmental degradation, both from creating less noxious emissions and also from less extraction and refining of hydrocarbons. Big businesses, however, have conspired to shut down public transportation, both by buying up existing streetcar lines and bus companies and bankrupting them on purpose and by using their political muscle to ensure that highways are built instead of rail lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

Suburbs were built with no access other than highways to big city jobs. Shopping centers were located outside of cities in areas often inaccessible to buses and subways, and no effort was made to extend those services to there.

Innovators in fuel economy and in electric cars saw their efforts met with stonewalling and even threats from manufacturers and government officials. So much for the free market.

The owners of the big car, petroleum, tire, and other related industries alleged that they were helping the economy by "creating jobs." All they did, though, was ratchet up the amount of money the average person needed to live, contributing to causing an endless cycle of price inflation/increased salary demands as workers struggled to catch up. They also caused a great increase in air pollution and with it illnesses and deaths due to lung diseases. I haven't even mentioned yet the destruction of millions of acres of environment due to paving over wildlands with streets and highways that wouldn't have been needed if more people used public transportation, nor the billions of hours of human life wasted sitting in traffic jams or the frustration of dealing with rude drivers.

All of this was mascaraded by the advertising smoke screen of "personal freedom" and "looking cool/sexy" or "keeping up with the Joneses".

So, did those big companies have the "right" to contaminate our surroundings, cause millions of people to work harder and go into constant debt to buy cars, and lose big chunks of their life stuck in traffic, just to increase their profits? Which would have been better for the world--this, or a rational decision-making process that would have encouraged public transportation instead of private?

When people live together in a society there have to be sacrifices. Everybody cannot do whatever they want whenever they want. That is a recipe for chaos, or the "law of the jungle."

The way it is now, big capitalists are the ones who tell me what to do, what I can buy and what I can't buy. They tell me I have to have a car to get to work, because there's no other way to get there. Public transportation is often non-existent, and walking or bicycling is often out of the question because it's too dangerous. No spaces are made for walkers and bicyclers to use, and often the distances to be covered are too great.

The needs of capitalists take priority over the needs of the people.

[Venas Abiertas]

This is just one example. The foods the companies promote, the clothes, the health-care system, etc, etc, are not designed rationally in a way that best suits the majority of the people.

Now, like many pro-capitalists, you might argue that the abuses of capitalism are due to what some call "crony capitalism." You would like to see a more honest and caring capitalism. The problem here is that all capitalism is "crony capitalism." The very nature of a system guided by the profit motive, in which everything, and eventually everyone, has a price and is for sale, will inevitably lead to the kinds of abuses most of us are against.

Have you read on this forum any of the materials on basic Marxism? There you will see about surplus value, the reserve army of labor, and the crisis of overproduction which are all integral parts of a capitalist system. Capitalism is a cannibalistic system doomed to failure by its very nature. It possesses internal contradictions which will cause it to lurch from crisis to crisis until it finally collapses under its own weight. We human beings can do much better than that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The result of which is Chinese farmers can produce things other than rice.the result is actually mass migration to industrial areas in china by formerly rural people, not producing other crops.

This might be efficient in a more general sense of freeing people from less productive farming that's labor intensive, but in capitalism it results not in mutual benifit, but private wealth accumulation which impoverishes farmers even while making more farm production possible. The same with technological advances, in the abstract these advances could create more wealth and more ease, but instead they create only private wealth and maintains the need for wage labor.

Again, your main assumption is that market efficiency is a neutral measure of efficiency when outside of the profit motive it is not. Booms and busts not to mention inequality and falling profit tendencies expose the contradictions of this kind of efficiency.


Its going to have to be shipped to people who live in cities.
And again-- I like bananas and a system which can't figure out a way to ship bananas...this is just willful ignorance of my points now. As I said, some resources are location-specific, but this doesn't explain why fertile land might become McMansions or why agriculture is centralized and organized as it is when resources are not strictly dictated by location.


Well, if Wal-mart uses 5 workers rather than 10 and accomplishes the same objective, this means there are 5 workers who can do other things. Which means workers elsewhere may have additional labor to make things easier on them. Wal-mart is more profitable and labor is directed in a more appropriate direction. A win/win for all.when are people ever employed to make things easier for other workers? No they will only be hired if there is profit in it. Again, quick exchange, profit, is the main thing and all other considerations are secondary if they are considered at all. Us workers are busier than ever and there is higher unemployment. According to you, capitalism should be flooding us with some back-up any minute. But in fact, generally, as well as from personal anecdote, I can tell you that part of the reason bosses are able to get away with working people harder for the same or less wage is BECAUSE of higher unemployment which means people have to take the terms dictated to them (unless they collectively organize and create their own counterweight) because they can't easily leave and pick up more work.

[Baseball]

the result is actually mass migration to industrial areas in china by formerly rural people, not producing other crops.

Which is fine. The community does not need the to produce food. They produce other things, and still eat.


This might be efficient in a more general sense of freeing people from less productive farming that's labor intensive, but in capitalism it results not in mutual benifit, but private wealth accumulation which impoverishes farmers even while making more farm production possible. The same with technological advances, in the abstract these advances could create more wealth and more ease, but instead they create only private wealth and maintains the need for wage labor.

The socialist community will need that labor available to it as well


Again, your main assumption is that market efficiency is a neutral measure of efficiency when outside of the profit motive it is not. Booms and busts not to mention inequality and falling profit tendencies expose the contradictions of this kind of efficiency.

Its the best that there is.


this is just willful ignorance of my points now. As I said, some resources are location-specific, but this doesn't explain why fertile land might become McMansions

Because the the land is more valuable for uses other than farming. All lands in a socialist community cannot be assigned for farming.


or why agriculture is centralized and organized as it is when resources are not strictly dictated by location.

I guess because it makes no sense to have a farm in the middle of a city.


when are people ever employed to make things easier for other workers?

I did not say this would e the objective. i said it would a happy result of it.


No they will only be hired if there is profit in it.

This would have to be true for the socialist community as well; workers would have to be directed to areas where their labor was considered more important than in other areas. Profit is the effective way of measuring whether the community has been successful in these efforts.

[Baseball]

The way it is now, big capitalists are the ones who tell me what to do, what I can buy and what I can't buy. They tell me I have to have a car to get to work, because there's no other way to get there. Public transportation is often non-existent, and walking or bicycling is often out of the question because it's too dangerous. No spaces are made for walkers and bicyclers to use, and often the distances to be covered are too great.

The needs of capitalists take priority over the needs of the people.

Suburbanization did not begin because of capitalism; capitalism responded to it. Just like the reverse has been happening.
Capitalists cannot survive without the meeting the needs of people. The response that such needs are 'manipulated' by the capitalist is absurd and counter-productive even from the socialist standpoint.

[the debater]

Suburbanization did not begin because of capitalism; capitalism responded to it. Just like the reverse has been happening.
Capitalists cannot survive without the meeting the needs of people. The response that such needs are 'manipulated' by the capitalist is absurd and counter-productive even from the socialist standpoint.

Please forgive me if this was already covered, but a possible situation that scares me is if capitalists meet the needs of the populace, but only by resorting to whatever means will net them the most money, not means that will be the best necessarily for the consumers. A capitalist might want to sell expensive cars to people, when in fact, there exists the much better option of public transportation. What I also don't like about capitalism is when people buy stupid stuff, like expensive sneakers or buying the "latest fashions." For me personally, in my ideal socialist utopia, the government would concern itself with important stuff like healthcare and education, whereas minor stuff, like video games and pajamas would probably be covered by some minor, somewhat weakened private sector. Capitalism does not concern itself with the most energy-efficient or highest quality products, but rather with products that will net them the most money. In general.

[Marshal of the People]

Please forgive me if this was already covered, but a possible situation that scares me is if capitalists meet the needs of the populace, but only by resorting to whatever means will net them the most money, not means that will be the best necessarily for the consumers. A capitalist might want to sell expensive cars to people, when in fact, there exists the much better option of public transportation. What I also don't like about capitalism is when people buy stupid stuff, like expensive sneakers or buying the "latest fashions." For me personally, in my ideal socialist utopia, the government would concern itself with important stuff like healthcare and education, whereas minor stuff, like video games and pajamas would probably be covered by some minor, somewhat weakened private sector. Capitalism does not concern itself with the most energy-efficient or highest quality products, but rather with products that will net them the most money. In general.

Reactionary!

[Sinister Intents]

Please forgive me if this was already covered, but a possible situation that scares me is if capitalists meet the needs of the populace, but only by resorting to whatever means will net them the most money, not means that will be the best necessarily for the consumers. A capitalist might want to sell expensive cars to people, when in fact, there exists the much better option of public transportation.

That's what the capitalists do... they seek to profit off of the populace. Profit is the goal, not meeting the needs of the proletariat, but meeting their own selfish needs.


What I also don't like about capitalism is when people buy stupid stuff, like expensive sneakers or buying the "latest fashions." For me personally, in my ideal socialist utopia, the government would concern itself with important stuff like healthcare and education, whereas minor stuff, like video games and pajamas would probably be covered by some minor, somewhat weakened private sector.

Your socialist utopia sounds like a form of capitalism. Also under socialism the government will be destroyed, their cannot exist a state of any kinda under socialism. It would be up to the people to determine what to produce, utilize, et cetera.


Capitalism does not concern itself with the most energy-efficient or highest quality products, but rather with products that will net them the most money. In general.

Exactly, products are created for profit. The consumers buy these products like say an iPod touch and within months something is wrong with it, and the consumer needs a new one. This is obsolescence, products are created to fail, falter, and or break. And you often cannot get replacement parts so you have to buy another expensive, poorly crafted fashion commodity.

[Marshal of the People]

That's what the capitalists do... they seek to profit off of the populace. Profit is the goal, not meeting the needs of the proletariat, but meeting their own selfish needs.



Your socialist utopia sounds like a form of capitalism. Also under socialism the government will be destroyed, their cannot exist a state of any kinda under socialism. It would be up to the people to determine what to produce, utilize, et cetera.



Exactly, products are created for profit. The consumers buy these products like say an iPod touch and within months something is wrong with it, and the consumer needs a new one. This is obsolescence, products are created to fail, falter, and or break. And you often cannot get replacement parts so you have to buy another expensive, poorly crafted fashion commodity.

The Debater had gone past just annoying now. I think he is a troll and a reactionary.

[Sinister Intents]

The Debater had gone past just annoying now. I think he is a troll and a reactionary.

Probably a reactionary haha, I'm looking forward to his response. In his(?) profile in the about me section it says:


Political Statement I may or may not have some views that are in disagreement with other RevLeft members.

[the debater]

The Debater had gone past just annoying now. I think he is a troll and a reactionary.

You do realize that by now, I've gotten used to people calling me a troll or a conservative? It barely fazes me, let alone a single hair on my head. How could I possibly be a troll when I'm a professional poster, who actually knows how to back up his beliefs with logic, with facts, and with legitimate scientific studies. Case in point, when a thread popped up talking about the possibility of "curing homosexuality" I quickly went to Wikipedia, and found legitimate sources to actually back up the Rev-Left position that sexual orientation cannot be cured. Unlike everyone else, who as far as I can remember, did not back up their claims like I did. I seriously don't get how someone who values accuracy and evidence so strongly can possibly be considered a troll?

[Bostana]

Case in point, when a thread popped up talking about the possibility of "curing homosexuality" I quickly went to Wikipedia, and found legitimate sources to actually back up the Rev-Left position that sexual orientation cannot be cured.

Who the fucks looks up a cure for homosexuality? Oh yeah conservatives who actually believe it's a disease.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Which is fine. The community does not need the to produce food. They produce other things, and still eat.let me be claear: I am not arguing that it's better to be inefficient in the abstract, I am arguing that efficiency in capitalism is determined by profitability, not output or abstract use or abstract benifit to the population. In fact profitability is mostly counter posed to long term efficiency and use because if you can't do the quick exchange, then someone else will and you'll loose in competition eventually.

Capitalism reduces waste through tendencies towards centralization and monopoly, but this is done only to increase the concentration of wealth and power and so the savings in labor and materials does not produce any benifit beyond the capitalists in that monopoly. Capitalism creates labor saving tech, but this tech only makes fewer worker harder. Imagine an early ag community without irrigation: if one farmer creates an irrigation system but does so by damning the river and diverting the run off to his lands, it is not an abstract benifit to local ag because now other farmers have no water, but from the one farmer's perspective, he can argue that irrigation is much more efficient than not having it.


The socialist community will need that labor available to it as wellyes, labor creates wealth, but the question is who labors for whom and for what? Making things easier more efficient and saving labor can all be absolute benifits, but not in the profit system with wage labor because any advances will not end up saving labor of laborers, it will just allow the few to suck more blood from the remaining workers. Joblessness isn't a problem for capitalists, they need reserve labor and so firming redundant workers actually in the long run helps the capitalists because people will be more timid and needy. But labor-saving tech in capitalism for workers either means working harder or being laid off. They can not just "go use their labor for something else" they must seek a new boss to get wages and so there is no automatic general benifit as you argue.


Its the best that there is. well I think this is the crux of your arguments: apologism. Feudalism and slavery were the best there is in their times, this did not mean they were abstractly "the best" and only a few weirdos would think they are better arrangements than capitalism. You seem to think that markets, rather than just boats and people, are required for bananas to go from one region to another. People will not forget how to ship things without markets (in fact earlier societies had a lot of trade over vast distances, but items had to be light or small... Textiles or spices etc.)


Because the the land is more valuable for uses other than farming. All lands in a socialist community cannot be assigned for farming. did I say that all land would be assigned for farming? Yet again you miss my point. That ag land has not lost it's fertileness and "use value" as farm land, what has happened in these situations is that the exchange value for that land has changed to make housing developments a better exchange use than farming. So again, it backs up my argument about abstract use verses exchange.


I guess because it makes no sense to have a farm in the middle of a city.it makes no sense to produce food where it is consumed? Sometimes this may be inevitable... I doubt that Las Vegas could feed itself, in the past large-scale urban agriculture would' be able to be more productive than a bunch of victory gardens, but today it's quite possible.... Except that cheap and subsidized land doesn't require the initial investment and infrastructure needed to produce industrially in population areas.


I did not say this would e the objective. i said it would a happy result of it.capitalism doesn't work like that! It isn't even a happy side effect. If you are stretched at work but able to complete it, though exhausted and not as good quality, then no one else will be hired to make things easier. Read about management techniques. Modern trade journals talk about strategies to push people until the thing breaks down and then you just pull back a little and you now know how hard you can work people. They even talk about the added benifit of overworking people in that workers will take initiative and figure out new ways on their own to be efficient just so they can keep pace.


This would have to be true for the socialist community as well; workers would have to be directed to areas where their labor was considered more important than in other areas. Profit is the effective way of measuring whether the community has been successful in these efforts.yes, but what basis are these decisions made? Democratic or by the few trying to increase their profits? It's a circular argument because profit is not a measurement, it's the goal of the activity. Yes, profits are a good measure of profitability: it's a bad measurement for the objective usefulness or efficiency of something. It would be like saying that the obedience of serfs to their lords was a good measure of the objective efficiency of feudalism.

[Baseball]

let me be claear: I am not arguing that it's better to be inefficient in the abstract, I am arguing that efficiency in capitalism is determined by profitability, not output or abstract use or abstract benifit to the population. In fact profitability is mostly counter posed to long term efficiency and use because if you can't do the quick exchange, then someone else will and you'll loose in competition eventually.


Imagine an early ag community without irrigation: if one farmer creates an irrigation system but does so by damning the river and diverting the run off to his lands, it is not an abstract benifit to local ag because now other farmers have no water, but from the one farmer's perspective, he can argue that irrigation is much more efficient than not having it.

He could argue it only if it was demonstrably true-- not simply by his say-so.


yes, labor creates wealth, but the question is who labors for whom and for what? Making things easier more efficient and saving labor can all be absolute benifits, but not in the profit system with wage labor because any advances will not end up saving labor of laborers, it will just allow the few to suck more blood from the remaining workers.

The idea of mass-unemployment as a result of economic advances I think has long been refuted.


Joblessness isn't a problem for capitalists, they need reserve labor and so firming redundant workers actually in the long run helps the capitalists because people will be more timid and needy.

A rational economy which effectively responds to consumer needs, requires some level of unemployment ie labor which can swiftly be allocated to satisfy new needs.


But labor-saving tech in capitalism for workers either means working harder or being laid off. They can not just "go use their labor for something else" they must seek a new boss to get wages and so there is no automatic general benifit as you argue.

Yes- there is. Rather than working in unproductive, or less productive endeavors, their labor is now working productively, or more productively.
So the workers do benefit, even if it is not readily apparent.


You seem to think that markets, rather than just boats and people, are required for bananas to go from one region to another. People will not forget how to ship things without markets

It is not a question of forgetting the technical aspects of shipping, but having no clear conception of why a particular shipment is being made versus shipping another particular item.


did I say that all land would be assigned for farming? Yet again you miss my point. That ag land has not lost it's fertileness and "use value" as farm land, what has happened in these situations is that the exchange value for that land has changed to make housing developments a better exchange use than farming. So again, it backs up my argument about abstract use verses exchange.

Yes-- the land is more valuable being used on something else. Its a problem which the socialist community faces as well.


it makes no sense to produce food where it is consumed?

Hopefully, one would want cities to have people, parks, inductry ect. It makes little sense to use land to that could be allocated for such actions to be used to grow corn.


capitalism doesn't work like that! It isn't even a happy side effect. If you are stretched at work but able to complete it, though exhausted and not as good quality, then no one else will be hired to make things easier.

There is a better chance of this occurring when there is an available pool of labor willing and able to work.
But work is required in the socialist community as well, and it is not realistic to surmise that it will not be taxing. At some, people will just have to deal with it as it is not realistic to expect more labor.
The socilaist communuty still needs to know when it is not realistic.




yes, but what basis are these decisions made? Democratic or by the few trying to increase their profits?

Those are two separate criteria: The workers need to have an objective, a rationale, to vote the way they do. And pursuit of Profit is a rationale for a particular decision.

[the debater]

Who the fucks looks up a cure for homosexuality? Oh yeah conservatives who actually believe it's a disease.

You didn't notice the quotation marks, did you?

I have a new suggestion for Rev-Left, a face palm emoticon!

[Marshal of the People]

You do realize that by now, I've gotten used to people calling me a troll or a conservative? It barely fazes me, let alone a single hair on my head. How could I possibly be a troll when I'm a professional poster, who actually knows how to back up his beliefs with logic, with facts, and with legitimate scientific studies. Case in point, when a thread popped up talking about the possibility of "curing homosexuality" I quickly went to Wikipedia, and found legitimate sources to actually back up the Rev-Left position that sexual orientation cannot be cured. Unlike everyone else, who as far as I can remember, did not back up their claims like I did. I seriously don't get how someone who values accuracy and evidence so strongly can possibly be considered a troll?

What is a "professional poster"? Is it your job to post? Are you paid to post? If you are paid to post by whom?

[the debater]

What is a "professional poster"? Is it your job to post? Are you paid to post? If you are paid to post by whom?

I don't get paid, it's just a hobby of mine. One day, I decided to randomly go onto Stormfront, and just read their threads out of curiosity. Naturally I was like WTF!? What the hell is this nonsense? What made it worse was that all the people trying to argue against racism seemed to be complete morons. That's basically when I decided to go onto Stormfront and ensure that the white supremacists became aware of the fact that they were being sheltered by the mods from having to debate real opponents. Until when I came along that is. Whenever I saw such insane bullshit, such as the shit that I saw on Stormfront, I had to act. I couldn't let these idiots delude themselves any further. I had to make them aware of Mark Henry, of Andrew Billings. I had to show them the Columbus Ohio crime study. I simply couldn't let such delusions just stand by. I hate pride. It's the worst mindset in the world, next to unrighteous anger.

If I got paid for posting, that would be pretty sweet. I'd just have to ensure that I got paid for the quality of my posts, rather than the quantity. :lol:

[Schumpeter]

I don't get paid, it's just a hobby of mine. One day, I decided to randomly go onto Stormfront, and just read their threads out of curiosity. Naturally I was like WTF!? What the hell is this nonsense? What made it worse was that all the people trying to argue against racism seemed to be complete morons. That's basically when I decided to go onto Stormfront and ensure that the white supremacists became aware of the fact that they were being sheltered by the mods from having to debate real opponents. Until when I came along that is. Whenever I saw such insane bullshit, such as the shit that I saw on Stormfront, I had to act. I couldn't let these idiots delude themselves any further. I had to make them aware of Mark Henry, of Andrew Billings. I had to show them the Columbus Ohio crime study. I simply couldn't let such delusions just stand by. I hate pride. It's the worst mindset in the world, next to unrighteous anger.

If I got paid for posting, that would be pretty sweet. I'd just have to ensure that I got paid for the quality of my posts, rather than the quantity. :lol:

The admins on this forum do the same, by restricting dissent to a small sub section.

[Comrade #138672]

The admins on this forum do the same, by restricting dissent to a small sub section.Since when does being a reactionary asshole count as "dissent"?

[the debater]

The admins on this forum do the same, by restricting dissent to a small sub section.

Well to be more specific, my posts were sometimes banned even from the opposing views sub-forum. This was despite the fact that my posts were intelligent, polite, contained no interracial gay porn or spam, and were relevant! I tried posting the GCSE scores of poor white British boys. It didn't get approved. I tried posting quotes about the inferior Germanic peoples during the time of Greece. That post never saw the light of day either. But I saw plenty of posts get approved that were really stupid or contained bad grammar, etc, etc. That's why I'm not intimidated by Stormfront at all. If they have to censor uncomfortable posts, then they are not going to last for very long at all.

[Marshal of the People]

I don't get paid, it's just a hobby of mine. One day, I decided to randomly go onto Stormfront, and just read their threads out of curiosity. Naturally I was like WTF!? What the hell is this nonsense? What made it worse was that all the people trying to argue against racism seemed to be complete morons. That's basically when I decided to go onto Stormfront and ensure that the white supremacists became aware of the fact that they were being sheltered by the mods from having to debate real opponents. Until when I came along that is. Whenever I saw such insane bullshit, such as the shit that I saw on Stormfront, I had to act. I couldn't let these idiots delude themselves any further. I had to make them aware of Mark Henry, of Andrew Billings. I had to show them the Columbus Ohio crime study. I simply couldn't let such delusions just stand by. I hate pride. It's the worst mindset in the world, next to unrighteous anger.

If I got paid for posting, that would be pretty sweet. I'd just have to ensure that I got paid for the quality of my posts, rather than the quantity. :lol:

So you are not a professional poster then?

[the debater]

So you are not a professional poster then?

No.

[Nakidana]

So you are not a professional poster then?

No.


How could I possibly be a troll when I'm a professional poster

I think you should be more humble regarding the "quality" of your posts. :rolleyes:

[the debater]

I think you should be more humble regarding the "quality" of your posts. :rolleyes:

True, but objectively speaking, I still seem to be one of the few Rev-Lefters who actually cares about, well you know.

[Marshal of the People]

No.

But before you said you were a professional poster.

[Marshal of the People]

True, but objectively speaking, I still seem to be one of the few Rev-Lefters who actually cares about, well you know.

Please elaborate.

[the debater]

Please elaborate.

See if you can guess what I'm talking about.

[Sinister Intents]

See if you can guess what I'm talking about.

What is really even going on here TD I haven't been paying attention.

[Marshal of the People]

See if you can guess what I'm talking about.

Fascists?

[dodger]

Perhaps the debate has moved on...? In any event a useful position paper from a section of migrant workers. Linked below--hope of interest:

http://migranteinternational.org/?p=3396

Top five reasons why Filipino migrant workers call to junk the World Trade Organization

Junk WTO!

Stop the commodification of Filipino migrant workers!

Scrap the labor export policy!

No to modern-day slavery! Migrants of the world, unite!

[the debater]

Fascists?

Excellent, excellent answer. But no. Something else.

[the debater]

What is really even going on here TD I haven't been paying attention.

Look to post 216.

[Sinister Intents]

Excellent, excellent answer. But no. Something else.


Look to post 216.

Still rather confused... I'll just read all of the posts

Ok I think I got it a bit, its just derailed the thread...

[the debater]

The answer is logic and facts. I seem to be one of the few leftists who actually cares about using logic and facts.

[Sinister Intents]

The answer is logic and facts. I seem to be one of the few leftists who actually cares about using logic and facts.

I don't think so, I care about using logic and facts, and several others use logic and facts and even things that have happened in their lives.

[#FF0000]

The answer is logic and facts. I seem to be one of the few leftists who actually cares about using logic and facts.

Man you are monstrously uninformed on social issues in general. Please, please get over yourself.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The answer is logic and facts. I seem to be one of the few leftists who actually cares about using logic and facts.

Or rather, you are one of the many leftists who do not understand the political side of certain questions, and act as if every question is technical (revealing their bourgeois prejudice). I mean, what is the point in arguing that immigration should not be restricted because immigrants do not harm "Native Jobs" or "The Native Economy"? We should attack the assumptions underlying that argument, not try to present immigrant workers as good for the bosses.

[Lowtech]

Mass immigration is a tactic used by capitalists under the pretext of globalization to manipulate the labor pool like the ancient imperialist powers did with slaves or colonies.

So... you're saying, instead of people being compelled to migrate due to artificial scarcity, they're actually told to do so by capitalists?

Ok, duck dynasty.

[dodger]

On DOLE opening local job market to foreign workers due to “shortage”: “Absurd, atrocious and downright delusional” – Migrante

http://migranteinternational.org/?p=3422
This good lady is spitting feathers. A tweet. The article linked above is of the same temper.

Earth to DOLE/Noynoy: “Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut! Go take a flying fuck at the mooooooon!"

[the debater]

Or rather, you are one of the many leftists who do not understand the political side of certain questions, and act as if every question is technical (revealing their bourgeois prejudice). I mean, what is the point in arguing that immigration should not be restricted because immigrants do not harm "Native Jobs" or "The Native Economy"? We should attack the assumptions underlying that argument, not try to present immigrant workers as good for the bosses.

When I say I'm one of the few leftists who cares about logic and facts, what I mean is I'm more enthusiastic and more diligent about using logic and facts in debates. I'm not the type of leftist who uses arguments like "there's only one race, the human race." Or arguments like "we all bleed red". I always rely on concrete scientific data, reliable statistics, historical arguments to back up my beliefs about racial equality and gay rights and women's rights, etc, etc. I make sure to verify my beliefs to see if they are correct or not. And the good news is that so far, it does seems as if we leftists have the facts on our side. So for Christ's sake, use them more often! We need as many threads as possible on Revleft that look as if they came from a Wikipedia article, rather than from a teenager's text message.

[the debater]

I don't think so, I care about using logic and facts, and several others use logic and facts and even things that have happened in their lives.

Let's say I'm debating you about the great IQ debate. You argue that IQ is basically all environmental, and that there is no need for racism, or for eugenics. I on the other hand, argue that IQ is mostly heritable, and not environmental, and as evidence, I cite the Minnesota Twin Studies. How do you respond?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

When I say I'm one of the few leftists who cares about logic and facts, what I mean is I'm more enthusiastic and more diligent about using logic and facts in debates. I'm not the type of leftist who uses arguments like "there's only one race, the human race." Or arguments like "we all bleed red". I always rely on concrete scientific data, reliable statistics, historical arguments to back up my beliefs about racial equality and gay rights and women's rights, etc, etc. I make sure to verify my beliefs to see if they are correct or not. And the good news is that so far, it does seems as if we leftists have the facts on our side. So for Christ's sake, use them more often! We need as many threads as possible on Revleft that look as if they came from a Wikipedia article, rather than from a teenager's text message.

Anti-racism, queer and womens' liberation etc. - these are not "beliefs" but political positions. If you want to convince racists, homophobes, and misogynists using "threads that look as if they came for a Wikipedia article", you have to tacitly accept most of their assumptions.


Let's say I'm debating you about the great IQ debate. You argue that IQ is basically all environmental, and that there is no need for racism, or for eugenics. I on the other hand, argue that IQ is mostly heritable, and not environmental, and as evidence, I cite the Minnesota Twin Studies. How do you respond?

Anti-racism is not contingent on IQ being environmental - just as queer liberation, for example, is not contingent on homosexuality being genetic. Who cares about IQ? We're not trying to create a more ruthlessly efficient capitalism. In basing your "anti-racism" on something like IQ, you already assume a very virulent form of social "Darwinism".

[Marxaveli]

Let's say I'm debating you about the great IQ debate. You argue that IQ is basically all environmental, and that there is no need for racism, or for eugenics. I on the other hand, argue that IQ is mostly heritable, and not environmental, and as evidence, I cite the Minnesota Twin Studies. How do you respond?

At best, this would be cherry picking evidence to support your case. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into account the multitude of other variables involved, and relies on the old nature vs. nurture debate which isn't every useful anyways. The second problem is, it flies in the face of all the cases where children have a different IQ than that of their parents or grandparents. Thirdly, the IQ test itself, as mentioned by many other posters in this thread, isn't a very good way of measuring intelligence. Measuring intelligence itself is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, even if we know an intelligent person when we see one. So whether the IQ test is based on environment or genetics doesn't matter either way. Fuck the IQ test.

[the debater]

At best, this would be cherry picking evidence to support your case. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into account the multitude of other variables involved, and relies on the old nature vs. nurture debate which isn't every useful anyways. The second problem is, it flies in the face of all the cases where children have a different IQ than that of their parents or grandparents. Thirdly, the IQ test itself, as mentioned by many other posters in this thread, isn't a very good way of measuring intelligence. Measuring intelligence itself is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, even if we know an intelligent person when we see one. So whether the IQ test is based on environment or genetics doesn't matter either way. Fuck the IQ test.

And, and, AND, do not forget! There were some major flaws with the Minnesota Twin Studies, according to the folks who re-investigated the study! Twins who weren't separated at birth, but rather much later, greatly messing up the experimental set-up. Twins who were separated early, but still were adopted by families with similar economic backgrounds, thus not making the environments very different at all. Twins who were separated, but still maintained contact with each other despite living apart.

[the debater]

Anti-racism, queer and womens' liberation etc. - these are not "beliefs" but political positions. If you want to convince racists, homophobes, and misogynists using "threads that look as if they came for a Wikipedia article", you have to tacitly accept most of their assumptions.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no..........





Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.




Wait a minute, are you saying that if I'm trying to find evidence against creationism, that means I'm assuming creationism to be true? Please tell me this is not what you mean, and that I vastly misunderstood the point you were trying to make here.



Anti-racism is not contingent on IQ being environmental - just as queer liberation, for example, is not contingent on homosexuality being genetic. Who cares about IQ? We're not trying to create a more ruthlessly efficient capitalism. In basing your "anti-racism" on something like IQ, you already assume a very virulent form of social "Darwinism".

But wouldn't you agree that if IQ is indeed environmental, that that would be a hugely solid argument leftists could use against racists? If the races are indeed equal, then there is no scientific basis for racism what so ever. This IQ argument is the argument racists will use over and over and over until they are finally proven wrong. I was actually reading some thread recently on Stormfront where the white supremacists were trying to validate their beliefs by relying on the assumption that if the different races evolved in different climates, that automatically meant their IQs would all be different. I've already posted studies that showed this assumption to be miserable false. Likewise, the racists would also argue that low IQ = high crime rates. If you want to defeat racism, provide evidence that the races are equal, and that black people are not dangerous subhumans, as the white nationalists would like to believe. I've done my part, now it's time to do yours.

[dodger]

http://migranteinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/migheader.jpg

http://migranteinternational.org/?p=3419

In response to PDI banner story: “Labor export policy is still worst form human trafficking” – Migrante

State-sponsored human trafficking
Martinez said that since the passing of the Migrant Workers’ Act of 1995 (Republic Act 8042, amended by RA 10022), and the subsequent passing of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208), the Philippine government has become the top trafficker of its workers.

Human trafficking of Filipino workers, especially women, is still rampant and operating in record-high levels in the Philippines yet the accountability of perpetrators and their coddlers in government remains low. “Worse, the labor export policy, the government program that systematically and aggressively peddles cheap labor of our Filipino workers and professionals abroad, had become more entrenched and institutionalized especially under the present Aquino administration.”

“Ang sistema kasi ng human traffickers sa ganitong mga kaso, kapag na-deploy na nila ang mga OFW, nagpapalit sila ng pangalan bago pa man sila ireklamo. Ang problema naman sa POEA, alam naman nilang ganito na ang modus operandi hindi pa rin nila nasusuplong kaya nakakapanloko pa ulit ang mga ito. Ang masaklap pa, dahil matagal na ngang kalakaran, malamang sa hindi ay may mga kakuntsaba na ang mga sindikatong ito sa loob ng gobyerno.”

“The government’s labor export policy is the worst form of state-sponsored human trafficking of Filipinos. Under the Aquino administration, not one trafficker has been punished. Abusive recruitment agencies continue to operate and victimize Filipinos, ” Martinez said.

Migrante calls on the Philippine government to investigate, prosecute and punish all erring private recruitment agencies, government officials and employers/individuals who have violated RA 9208 or any other clause pertaining to human trafficking in RA 8042, without prejudice and political will.

“The best resolution is still to work together to realize a day when our citizens will no longer be forced to face dire and dangerous conditions overseas out of desperation, poverty and hopelessness in our very own country,” Martinez said. ###

Above link leads to the article in its entirety:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Wait a minute, are you saying that if I'm trying to find evidence against creationism, that means I'm assuming creationism to be true? Please tell me this is not what you mean, and that I vastly misunderstood the point you were trying to make here.

Creationism consists of direct factual claims, albeit rather stupid claims that can be easily disproved. (Nonetheless, I do think it is pointless to engage creationists in debate, given that such people are either dishonest or deluded, and that debating them simply gives them legitimacy they do not deserve. But that's besides the point.) Racism, however, is primarily a political position, an evaluative judgment rather than statement of fact. Someone can accept that, e.g., there are no significant genetic differences between races and still be a racist, explicitly or implicitly (obviously ancient racism had no need for genetics, for example).

Most liberal attempts to debate with racists actually reinforce racist ideology. I will address that later; for the moment I would like to draw your attention to a similar phenomenon. Liberal attempts to debate with homophobes invariably rely on the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. That happens to be the case. Nonetheless, focusing on that fact leaves the impression that homosexuality is still something "sick" or "sinful", but, there you have it, gay people can't help themselves. Likewise, liberal attempts to debate with opponents of abortion - and let me remind you that behind the innocuous phrase lies the reality of rabid misogynistic fascists who want to tie women down and force them to give birth - rely on studies of fetal pain etc., thus implicitly acknowledging the misogynist thesis that the fetus matters.


But wouldn't you agree that if IQ is indeed environmental, that that would be a hugely solid argument leftists could use against racists? If the races are indeed equal, then there is no scientific basis for racism what so ever. This IQ argument is the argument racists will use over and over and over until they are finally proven wrong. I was actually reading some thread recently on Stormfront where the white supremacists were trying to validate their beliefs by relying on the assumption that if the different races evolved in different climates, that automatically meant their IQs would all be different. I've already posted studies that showed this assumption to be miserable false. Likewise, the racists would also argue that low IQ = high crime rates.

Who cares about high crime rates? Many proletarians and other oppressed groups have their entire existence criminalised by the state. Socialists should oppose bourgeois legality, not tacitly accept it. In postwar Britain, the crime rate among gay people was astronomic - because being gay was a crime. Being a member of an oppressed nationality or racial caste is likewise de facto a crime in most societies. Good grief, you want us to convince little Nazi Billy that his little petit-bourgeois house, his petit-bourgeois lawn and his petit-bourgeois segregated gated neighborhood will be safe if we grant actual rights to the brown people. Who cares about that? Socialists are for racial equality, its effect on suburbanite Nazis be damned.

Likewise with IQ. Who cares about IQ? You seem to implicitly acknowledge that this vague number is some sort of indicator of intrinsic worth. Who cares if a given group is more "stupid" than the dominant group?


If you want to defeat racism, provide evidence that the races are equal, and that black people are not dangerous subhumans, as the white nationalists would like to believe. I've done my part, now it's time to do yours.

Unless black people become dangerous to Nazis, in areas where they are a minority, oppressed race, no amount of pandering to the Stormfront userbase will defeat racism.

[Lowtech]

People are bipedal and have migrated to survive for an extremely long time, if somehow migration is a capitalist created phenomenon, how would migration predate capitalism itself? are capitalists masters of time travel?

just amusingly entertaining nonsense lol

[Lowtech]

Originally Posted by the debater
If you want to defeat racism, provide evidence that the races are equal, and that black people are not dangerous subhumans, as the white nationalists would like to believe. I've done my part, now it's time to do yours.

Unless black people become dangerous to Nazis, in areas where they are a minority, oppressed race, no amount of pandering to the Stormfront userbase will defeat racism.

Racists have yet to provide evidence that "races" themselves even exist, let alone DNA based evidence of superiority. Remarkably, capitalism is more consistent with racist ideology than socialism. Would I be crazy to say that being a racist socialist is madness?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I doubt you have mental issues. Nonetheless, it really isn't useful, or progressive, to reduce every political issue to "sanity", both implicitly mocking people with mental problems and evoking politicised psychiatry (something that is usually presented as a peculiar fault of the Soviet Union, but which existed in other states as well - in fact it still does).

Racist "socialists" are inconsistent because racism is one of the instruments that the bourgeois dictatorship uses to divide workers; one might as well be a misogynist "socialist", police "socialist" or settler "socialist". Yet races, as social categories, and particularly economic strata and castes, definitely do exist - "blackness" doesn't need to be genetic for "black people" to be a useful term in describing the social structure of, for example, United States.

[Schumpeter]

I doubt you have mental issues. Nonetheless, it really isn't useful, or progressive, to reduce every political issue to "sanity", both implicitly mocking people with mental problems and evoking politicised psychiatry (something that is usually presented as a peculiar fault of the Soviet Union, but which existed in other states as well - in fact it still does).

Racist "socialists" are inconsistent because racism is one of the instruments that the bourgeois dictatorship uses to divide workers; one might as well be a misogynist "socialist", police "socialist" or settler "socialist". Yet races, as social categories, and particularly economic strata and castes, definitely do exist - "blackness" doesn't need to be genetic for "black people" to be a useful term in describing the social structure of, for example, United States.

There is no 'bourgeois dictatorship' as there is no unified 'bourgeois' many wealthy people hate each others guts, its bullshit.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The bourgeoisie are not simply "wealthy people" but the owners of the means of production.

The bourgeoisie is a class, and its cohesion comes from the relations of production and does not rely on members of the class liking each other (ha).

The dictatorship of the bourgeois class can turn on individual members of the bourgeoisie, or even most of them (e.g. the two Napoleonic empires) while still serving the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

[Schumpeter]

The bourgeoisie are not simply "wealthy people" but the owners of the means of production.

The bourgeoisie is a class, and its cohesion comes from the relations of production and does not rely on members of the class liking each other (ha).

The dictatorship of the bourgeois class can turn on individual members of the bourgeoisie, or even most of them (e.g. the two Napoleonic empires) while still serving the class interest of the bourgeoisie.

Your talking shit, there is no capitalist conspiracy, businesses owners are not secretly calling each other up and discussing how they can oppress workers, they just want to make profits and that involves hiring more people. Anyone can become an owner of the means of production, as long as they drop your victim mentality and take up a winner's mentality.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Perhaps you should consider a career in writing self-help books, these always sell. Of course there is no grand capitalist conspiracy - although there are the usual cartels, trusts etc. - there is no need for such conspiracy. The state is an instrument of class rule and serves the interest of the ruling class - the class possessing the greatest degree of economic power - as a matter of course. Likewise there was no grand conspiracy of landowners and guild masters in the feudal mode of production etc. etc.

[Schumpeter]

Perhaps you should consider a career in writing self-help books, these always sell. Of course there is no grand capitalist conspiracy - although there are the usual cartels, trusts etc. - there is no need for such conspiracy. The state is an instrument of class rule and serves the interest of the ruling class - the class possessing the greatest degree of economic power - as a matter of course. Likewise there was no grand conspiracy of landowners and guild masters in the feudal mode of production etc. etc.

Power structures don't matter, there is no ethical basis for tearing them down as they would not lead to utility maximization. Infact you'd make everyone equally miserable. Examples such as cartels are ridiculous as they are illegal in the UK, as is tax evasion, but governments are restricted by the realm of reality, Marxism however, does not deal with reality.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Ethical bases are of no interest to us. Cartels and similar entities are still quite prevalent in the world - and these forms of late finance capital are more progressive than small businesses petit-bourgeois "radicals" like to idealize.

[Schumpeter]

Ethical bases are of no interest to us. Cartels and similar entities are still quite prevalent in the world - and these forms of late finance capital are more progressive than small businesses petit-bourgeois "radicals" like to idealize.

Marxism is unethical, what a lovely slogan. Thanks for endorsing it.

[Sinister Intents]

Marxism is unethical, what a lovely slogan. Thanks for endorsing it.

Please explain how Marxism is unethical, and explain your bullshit