Why do so many on the left still support mass-immigration?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Still waiting for an honest answer on this one.

Seriously, the idea that an influx of unskilled migrants to an EU/developed nation is miraculously going to cause a 'revolution' is totally absurd - that's not going to happen. But what it does do is create an oversupply of workers to allow the bosses to cut working conditions, fire at will and smash the unions. What's so socialist about that?

[James_Connolly]

Why do you blame the immigrants instead of the ones who, as you say, go against the workers rights.

[Tim Cornelis]

loool. What the fuck are you talking about? Who thinks it will cause a revolution? Never heard that one before. (Ah, insidious cultural Marxism, importing brown people to start a revolution of interracial marriages, white genocide, and sexual Bolshevism.)

So, bosses exploit workers, let's punish workers for it! Brilliant logic.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Why do you blame the immigrants instead of the ones who, as you say, go against the workers rights.
It's not about blame, just simple supply and demand.

Economics 101 in fact, increase the supply of workers, increase the power of the boss.

[Carlos-Marcos]

loool. What the fuck are you talking about? Who thinks it will cause a revolution? Never heard that one before. (Ah, insidious cultural Marxism, importing brown people to start a revolution of interracial marriages, white genocide, and sexual Bolshevism.)

So, bosses exploit workers, let's punish workers for it! Brilliant logic.

Nothing to do with skin colour either - in fact most migrants within the EU are generally white skinned moving to countries that are also predominantly white. Now, one can see how this can help the immigrant worker (though who is left to build up their own country?) but how does it help the original worker in the host nation?

Actually this is neo-liberalism at work - fine if you are a supporter of a mainstream capitalist party, but for a Marxist - how so?

[Armchair Partisan]

If the "bosses" want to "cut working conditions, fire at will and smash the unions", they will do so, immigrants or not. (Threatening to fire and replace a worker if they get unruly is standard practice in the West anyway, where full employment is never pursued, unlike in the former Warsaw Pact. Some unemployment is necessary for capitalism to function according to its own goals.) They will also create new jobs for the immigrants if they want to, or not if they don't want to, in which case it's their fault, not ours. Our job is to forge links of solidarity with both immigrant and native workers and fight together against the capitalist, not squabble among ourselves.

What do you mean by "supporting" mass immigration anyways? You think that anyone believes it's a good thing that workers are forced to leave their homes, for one reason or another, in hopes of making a new life for themselves on the periphery of a richer nation state? That it wouldn't be preferable if everyone could just stay home if they wanted to and work towards a revolution there? (Mass) immigration is a real and unavoidable event, the only question is how to react to it. Aside from eliminating the conditions that cause it (i.e. wars and capitalism - so basically, capitalism) mass immigration cannot be stopped, any cure is worse than the disease and just ends up empowering the bourgeois state.

You seem to make an awful lot of threads and posts about UKIP and their talking points, especially the point about immigrants coming into Britain and "taking urr jerbz". Plus that random thread mocking affirmative action that you seem to believe we are supporting. If you're not a pro-UKIP concern troll, you should try harder not to look like one.

[James_Connolly]

It's not about blame, just simple supply and demand.

Economics 101 in fact, increase the supply of workers, increase the power of the boss.

To me it looks it's indeed about blame. You are choosing to blame immigrant workers instead of local capitalists. You are supposing an oversupply of workers is necessarily negative for an economy. Is it always bad or maybe it's a flaw of capitalism?

[Rudolf]

Still waiting for an honest answer on this one.

Seriously, the idea that an influx of unskilled migrants to an EU/developed nation is miraculously going to cause a 'revolution' is totally absurd - that's not going to happen. But what it does do is create an oversupply of workers to allow the bosses to cut working conditions, fire at will and smash the unions. What's so socialist about that?


The same can be said about loads of people working...

Young people working results in an increase in the supply of labour.
Women working resulted in an increase in the supply of labour.
Disabled people working results in an increase in the supply of labour.
Breeding results in an increase in the supply of labour.

Are you going to advocate restrictions on these people?


It's more than that though. We aren't peasants bound to the land, the workers have to physically go to the point of production. Restricting the movement of labour does not result in gains for the working class it just makes it easier for the capitalist to plan what geographic location production occurs in order to maximise the extraction of surplus value.




Economics 101 in fact, increase the supply of workers, increase the power of the boss.

No not necessarily as it's all about the ebb and flow of class struggle. Interestingly now in the UK you're probably more likely for migrants to have had experience taking industrial action than those born here. That is why our conditions are deteriorating. The labour movement is practically dead and we have to rebuild. Pointing fingers at other workers because they had the nerve to be born on a different piece of soil can only make this task harder.

[Tim Cornelis]

though who is left to build up their own country?

so now supply and demand is irrelevant? Less workers, more power for the workers, right? So what's the problem then? Regardless, who says we want to leave it up to supply and demand? We don't leave the working day, insurance, vacation days, and minimum wage up to supply and demand, why do you assume we'd let supply and demand do its damage in relation to migrant workers?


Actually this is neo-liberalism at work - fine if you are a supporter of a mainstream capitalist party, but for a Marxist - how so?

This reminds me of this: "Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”)."

From the same source: "Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;" If bosses exploit the workers' position to profit, then surely, as a Marxist, you have to recognise that solution ought to be sought in the direction, and against, the boss, not the workers?

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

[cyu]

just simple supply and demand.

Economics 101 in fact

Many concepts are only true when other pre-conditions are met. Problems arise when those concepts are repeated so often, that people forget the required pre-conditions and assume they are true at all times.

For example, much of Western economic theory is developed under the assumption that capitalism exists. How many of those theories would still apply if there were no concept of property?

If governments are no longer to get involved in the economy, if police are no longer allowed to get involved in property protection, what assumptions about the market, ownership, and corporate disputes, would be broken?

[Counterculturalist]

Still waiting for an honest answer on this one.

Seriously, the idea that an influx of unskilled migrants to an EU/developed nation is miraculously going to cause a 'revolution' is totally absurd - that's not going to happen. But what it does do is create an oversupply of workers to allow the bosses to cut working conditions, fire at will and smash the unions. What's so socialist about that?

Revolutionary leftism of any stripe isn't about appeasing the bosses so that they'll be nice to workers. It's about getting rid of the bosses.

[Alet]

I think the question is asked wrongly. The whole topic on refugees and immigration is not about supporting it, but about whether you allow it to happen or not. Nobody, at least not on the left, wants people to leave their country, but once it had happened due to war, poverty or for political reasons it is certainly socialist and a matter of course not to refuse their entry, but instead give them a chance to escape their misery. We as socialists should know that immigration is an effect of different causes and thus it's stupid and senseless to solve this "problem" by not accepting migrants.

[consuming negativity]

they will always have an excuse to fuck us over. by not being assholes to migrant workers, we're not only being normal people, but we're able to then foster good relationships with those people, which is critical from a strategic standpoint. plus, if they're not as politically astute, maybe they can learn something from us. maybe we can learn something from them. why should we waste our energy fighting against shit that is being caused by capitalism in the first place? the economic push and pull factors are what's creating the immigration. making a law against migration isn't much different from the old feudal laws forbidding the movement of serfs. just in a modern context. they want them to stay put so they can be more easily exploited. i'm not saying immigration is great and wonderful, although i do personally find people interesting; i'm saying that by opposing it, we're playing their game and fighting each other for them. it's disgusting and i won't be party to it.

[Blake's Baby]

Because everyone is from this planet and any attempt to limit where people and can't live based on bourgeois notions of 'right' is fucking obscene, that's why.

I support mass immigration, mass emigration, workers picking somewhere they want to go and going there. If you want to stop that happening then you support the politics of the bourgeoisie, simple as.

[Danneborger]

A real socialist doesn't support mass-immigration.

[VivalaCuarta]

The only thing that impedes the capitalists from intensifying their exploitation of the workers to and beyond the physical and biological limits is the class struggle. Either the workers are united against the capitalists or they are divided against each other. The bosses deny some workers little bits of paper and stamps and such, and say that that gives them a reason to subject certain workers to special conditons of oppression and super exploitation. The only viable position of the labor movement if it is to succeed is to not give an inch to this divide-and-conquer ploy. Demand the same rights for everyone. Full citizenship rights for all immigrants. Fight for better conditions for all workers. Oppose the bosses' imperialist wars and their "home front" of racist attacks.

The price of labor power on the market is not determined by "supply and demand" but by the same determinant of value as any other commodity: the necessary labor time required for its production. But unlike coal or lumber, labor can join together and fight back, to abolish the whole capitalist system.

Or, alternatively, we can be poisoned by nationalist ideology and fight each other instead of the bosses.

[mushroompizza]

What do you suggest, we just not let starving people into developed countries?

[VivalaCuarta]

What do you suggest, we just not let

And who is this "we" everyone is talking about?

We don't propose alternate policies for the capitalist state.

We demand that the state stop persecuting immigrants. We organize the workers to smash the bosses state and build a workers state.

[Comrade Jacob]

Because people should have the freedom to live where they wish.

[VivalaCuarta]

And if the "mass" "influx" of "unskilled" workers "creates an oversupply" that "allows" the capitalists to exploit the workers then the people who believe this braindead theory can solve the "problem" by committing suicide.

[G4b3n]

You know, I always rolled my eyes when Third Worldists talked about the "white nationalist left", but I think I'm starting to see it now.

[mushroompizza]

Vivala calm down. I'm just saying that immigration is fine. Don't get your Trotsky in a wad!

[RedWorker]

And who is this "we" everyone is talking about?

We don't propose alternate policies for the capitalist state.

We demand that the state stop persecuting immigrants. We organize the workers to smash the bosses state and build a workers state.

So you demand that the capitalist state follows an alternate policy, whether or not this demand is tied to a revolutionary movement that aims to build a workers' state. I do sympathize with not identifying the bourgeois state as "we", though.

[mushroompizza]

One word "We", that was all that was able to create such a shit storm.

[Sewer Socialist]

Many of us are immigrants, and the usual methods of fighting immigration are to make things difficult for immigrants, especially those who aren't white.

[Rafiq]

Only capitalism has made possible sexual equality, formal civic freedoms, advances in medicine, and so on. Might we oppose these because they are "capitalist"? Should we have supported the old autocratic powers in Europe in the midst of the various bourgeois revolutions as well? What does it mean to oppose mass immigration? What are the positive connotations of this? You're correct to say that mass immigration has weakened labor. How has it, though? By dividing the working class. All this suggests is that immigrant workers need to be mobilized - I mean the ONLY way to effectively combat this is precisely through even the petty unionization of migrant workers. By adopting anti-immigrant sentiment, you're playing into the hands of the capitalists by exalting divisions among the working people. The point has nothing to do with moral pretenses to the "freedom of movement" or anything of that kind. We know very well for this to be a triviality. The point of the EU is that it removed restrictions that were previously in place, not by imposing new ones that "forced" people to immigrate or migrate.

If you make the distinction between native workers and the 'harmful' migrant workers, then you may as well make distinctions between native white workers, and native black workers in the United States. As we know, those who agitated along these lines in the United States only further weakened labor, and as the working class matured in its struggled, it realized that anti-racist politics was not merely an ethical responsibility, it was as dire necessity, because while ignorant workers, by in part from the pressure of capitalists may have made distinctions between blacks and whites, capital certainly did not.

In the same light as in the United States, Europe has become a unified economic totality. The working people in Britain cannot better themselves at the expense of the working people in Romania, and the working people in Greece cannot better themselves at expense of the working people in Germany (or vice versa). If capital is limitless, and boundless in its free movement, then in order for capital to be fought, how can labor be bound on national lines? It's very simple. Who cares about some abstract idea of supporting the "right" to go wherever you want. The mere connotations of opposing free movement of labor have far greater implications that don't regard such a dichotomy.

Migrant workers "hurt" labor on two levels: By reducing standards of labor conditions, and on a political level dividing the working class. Far from opposing immigration, the only means to which the working class can be strengthened is by ruthlessly fighting for better pro-immigration laws. Why is this? Because in enacting laws which will make the stay of migrant workers in countries like the UK (on a EU wide level) less precarious and more grounded, then migrant workers will have the opportunity to fight for better working conditions, pay, i.e. and the synchronization of the native workers movement with foreigners will be possible. Think: If immigration was not difficult, and if it was not precarious, then migrant workers would be less willing to work for lower wages in the long term. They work for lower wages because their countries are absolutely lacking of any proper infrastructure, decent jobs, pay, and so on. If they weren't threatened with having to go back to this, then labor would not be weakened. Capital would be forced to make flight, let's assume, to Asia, and more politically based free trade laws would have to be enacted that would allow free flow of labor. Before they know it, the capitalists will have fostered a globally coordinated labor movement and right under their feet will their power be swept! This is the paradox of the politics of immigration!

That's why the so-called principled "anti-reformism" of the infantile left, which places absolutely no value on immediate struggles (like better pay), because "it's still exploitation" or other foundationless moral platitudes, has no chance of combating racism or anti-immigrant sentiment. It's true that such reformism is not a long term solution, and that the time will come when a fork in the road will separate cowards from principled revolutionaries. But that time has not come yet.

[VivalaCuarta]

So you demand that the capitalist state follows an alternate policy,

Only from the perspective of an all-too-common sort of Internet-addled formalism. It is not a demand for a new policy but a negative demand, that the capitalist state stop treating immigrants differently from anyone else.


whether or not this demand is tied to a revolutionary movement that aims to build a workers' state.

I get that this is intended to be some defense of reformism but your foggy verbiage admits of no further precision. Whether reformists over the rainbow somewhere bye and bye demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants and seek to mobilize the power of the working class to defend immigrants might be a matter for metaphysics to ponder, but in the world, they don't, only revolutionaries do, and the "tie" to the revolutionary objective is verifiably explicit. We call it the Transitional Program.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I think the question is asked wrongly. The whole topic on refugees and immigration is not about supporting it, but about whether you allow it to happen or not. Nobody, at least not on the left, wants people to leave their country, but once it had happened due to war, poverty or for political reasons it is certainly socialist and a matter of course not to refuse their entry, but instead give them a chance to escape their misery. We as socialists should know that immigration is an effect of different causes and thus it's stupid and senseless to solve this "problem" by not accepting migrants.

And this is what many people on the Right don't understand about immigration. They talk about an "invasion" like migrant workers are soldiers sent to conquer the First World by some nefarious power (the Jews, the Illuminati, the Cultural Marxists, the Freemasons, etc.). Instead it is simply the workings of capitalism that causes mass migration. For example, NAFTA helped to swell the amount of Mexicans seeking to migrate to the United States because many Mexican farmers were ruined, being unable to compete with huge American agribuisnesses that dumped their products onto the Mexican market.

[MethodMania]

who is left to build up their own country?


The working men have no country.

oops

[RedWorker]

Only from the perspective of an all-too-common sort of Internet-addled formalism. It is not a demand for a new policy but a negative demand, that the capitalist state stop treating immigrants differently from anyone else.

"Negative" or "positive" demand is a difference that is tied only to language, not any real phenomena. It does not change one iota of anything.


I get that this is intended to be some defense of reformism but your foggy verbiage admits of no further precision. Whether reformists over the rainbow somewhere bye and bye demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants and seek to mobilize the power of the working class to defend immigrants might be a matter for metaphysics to ponder, but in the world, they don't, only revolutionaries do, and the "tie" to the revolutionary objective is verifiably explicit. We call it the Transitional Program.

How is it a defence of reformism? I'm saying that it's still a demand for an alternate policy within the bourgeois state whether it's tied to a revolutionary programme or not. You just love revolutionary phrasemongering.

[ñángara]

The left got nothing to do with the migration, except in concerning their labor and human rights.

Which are the factors that impulse migration? The anti-communist war of the imperial countries. The globalization (capitals go to the cheapest labor markets and cheap workers come to the metropolis). Even it may be the fault of the very corporations: transgenic seeds are imposed to Mexico and broke farmers are obliged to go to USA in order to survive.

Any how, the "host" country gains in cheap workers and more tax collection (foreigner workers pay more taxes than corporations -General Electric, for instance.)

[Carlos-Marcos]

Our job is to forge links of solidarity with both immigrant and native workers and fight together against the capitalist, not squabble among ourselves.

That would be a fair point IF (ie:big if), IF the immigrants were also socialists, but in most cases they are not - many are seemingly conservative, catholic, petite bourg and the rest - so no reason why they will be on board with such aims. How will you turn them into socialists?


(Mass) immigration is a real and unavoidable event, the only question is how to react to it.
Why do you think it is unavoidable? It didn't happen to this extent in the past and I've never read of it occuring in the Soviet Union, so of course it can be regulated, why ever not?


Plus that random thread mocking affirmative action that you seem to believe we are supporting. If you're not a pro-UKIP concern troll, you should try harder not to look like one.

Which thread would that be? and the UKIP posts are relevent because they gave the Conservatives a great boost in the recent UK election (and no, I did NOT vote UKIP)

[Carlos-Marcos]

The same can be said about loads of people working...

Young people working results in an increase in the supply of labour.
Women working resulted in an increase in the supply of labour.
Disabled people working results in an increase in the supply of labour.
Breeding results in an increase in the supply of labour.

Are you going to advocate restrictions on these people?
Red-herring - These people are not immigrants.


]Pointing fingers at other workers because they had the nerve to be born on a different piece of soil can only make this task harder.I am not blaming the immigrant per se, no, the blame is with the facilitators of the system of mass immigration and its supporters, who quite often are neo-liberal Trotskyists.

[Carlos-Marcos]

From the same source: "Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;" If bosses exploit the workers' position to profit, then surely, as a Marxist, you have to recognise that solution ought to be sought in the direction, and against, the boss, not the workers?

It's not about paying lower wages to immigrants, as that does not happen legally - the wages are the same thanks to min wage law. However, the workforce becomes more expendable due to the oversupply of labour - and this lowers working conditions for all. This lowering of conditions is a direct consequence of mass immigration, one of it's main purposes in fact.

[Carlos-Marcos]

I support mass immigration, mass emigration, workers picking somewhere they want to go and going there. If you want to stop that happening then you support the politics of the bourgeoisie, simple as.

And Lenin and Stalin allowed that did they?:rolleyes:

[Carlos-Marcos]

The price of labor power on the market is not determined by "supply and demand" but by the same determinant of value as any other commodity: the necessary labor time required for its production. But unlike coal or lumber, labor can join together and fight back, to abolish the whole capitalist system.


Sounds good in theory, but when an employer has only 1 guy available to fix his car, and the worker demands £30/hr, what's he going to do?

But now there are 50 guys who can fix his car (due to immigration) and 10 of them say they will work for £10/hr who is he gonna choose?

[Carlos-Marcos]

What do you suggest, we just not let starving people into developed countries?

Another red herring, because this thread is about economic migrants, mainly from one EU nation to another.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Instead it is simply the workings of capitalism that causes mass migration. For example, NAFTA helped to swell the amount of Mexicans seeking to migrate to the United States because many Mexican farmers were ruined, being unable to compete with huge American agribuisnesses that dumped their products onto the Mexican market.

Good post, and I agree that mass-immigration is the neo-liberal capitalist's wet dream - what better way to increase the power of the rich in the Western host nation, whilst at the same time undercutting the poorer nations and lower classes of the host nation. Great stuff if you are a bourgeoisie or middle class and above, but for the rest?

Not so great, yet all the Left-liberals on this thread are supporting it! WTF:confused:

[John Nada]

Quit fucking muti-posting, reactionary sockpuppet! Repeating the same shit over and over does not make you right.

[cyu]

Greece isn't about to collapse. Greece has already collapsed. The ruling class has already abandoned the Greek capitalists still "unfortunate" enough to be stuck there. What they fear now is the contagion to spread throughout the rest of Europe, taking down the rest of the European ruling class.

So what is one major fear of contagion? Greek immigration. The ruling class plans to turn non-Greek Europeans against any Greeks moving into the rest of Europe. Much better to let the poor fight each other, than have either notice the rich and rip them down from their pedestals.

The ruling class is pretty good at propaganda though. For one, they own the media. They've already done it before as documented in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath - adding fire to anti-immigrant sentiment now is just laying the groundwork for a full fledged anti-immigrant campaign in the future, in an all out attempt to save their own power.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-i-can-hire-one-half-of-the-working-class-to-kill-the-other-half-jay-gould-74010.jpg

[Left Voice]

We 'support' immigration because we oppose the idea of borders in principle. National borders are inherently reactionary, created by the pre-Bourgeoisie ruling class who carved up the world into their own little spheres of influence. This territory was usually expanded by armies who here hired to fight. The Treaty of Westphalia was agreed so that this ruling class could establish some stability in the territory that they controlled. There is an assumption that national borders designate cultural and linguistic boundaries, but these typically arose afterwards as the peoples within these national borders assimilated, often under the direction of the state.

We support mass immigration because we question the legitimacy of national borders in the first place as well as the ruling class's right to restrict people into designated places.

[Carlos-Marcos]

ok, fair enough if you are an Anarchist:) , but I am not and I do actually believe that there is a real need for the nation state. So really, all the anarchist reasonings on this thread do not really change Carlos' views on modern day immigration.

[Armchair Partisan]

That would be a fair point IF (ie:big if), IF the immigrants were also socialists, but in most cases they are not - many are seemingly conservative, catholic, petite bourg and the rest - so no reason why they will be on board with such aims. How will you turn them into socialists?

The same way we turn everyone else into socialists. Also, the petit-bourgeoisie doesn't tend to take part in mass immigration.


Why do you think it is unavoidable? It didn't happen to this extent in the past and I've never read of it occuring in the Soviet Union, so of course it can be regulated, why ever not?

I've never really heard of it occurring in Mauritania either... newsflash: of course there's no mass immigration if there are much more attractive options.


Which thread would that be? and the UKIP posts are relevent because they gave the Conservatives a great boost in the recent UK election (and no, I did NOT vote UKIP)

The "should we give weak men more rights" one. I still won't ever understand what went through your mind when you created it.


ok, fair enough if you are an Anarchist:) , but I am not and I do actually believe that there is a real need for the nation state. So really, all the anarchist reasonings on this thread do not really change Carlos' views on modern day immigration.

No revolutionary supports the nation-state, anarchist or not. Even liberal capitalists wish to curtail it nowadays, in the era of globalization. This is a signed admission that you're a counterrevolutionary, so if you don't want to be rekt-stricted I think it'd be a good time to have a good talk about why you think the nation state is necessary.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Chavez etc... they all believed in the nation state, but I guess they were all just liberals really, yeah right:laugh:

[Carlos-Marcos]

The same way we turn everyone else into socialists. Also, the petit-bourgeoisie doesn't tend to take part in mass immigration.Let's face it, the Marxist type socialist parties these days are hardly growing in vote count, no, it's more the likes of the right wing parties that are gaining
And as for the PB's, seems to be most immigrants dream to set up their own business in UK or US , not join a union, so like I said, most Eastern Euros hate anything that resembles any from of communism/socialism, and most likely will vote for capitalist parties

[Carlos-Marcos]

I've never really heard of it occurring in Mauritania either... newsflash: of course there's no mass immigration if there are much more attractive options.
The mass immigration just turns the people of the poorer nations (cheers Dodger:)) into export product, whilst eroding socialism in the host nation - yet you approve?:confused:


No revolutionary supports the nation-state, anarchist or not. Even liberal capitalists wish to curtail it nowadays, in the era of globalization.

Yes they do , or have you never heard of Che Guevara, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Chavez, Stalin, Scargill, etc etc... or wait, no I suppose those guys were 'reactionary fascist'? or something, lol , seriously WTF

[Armchair Partisan]

Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Chavez etc... they all believed in the nation state, but I guess they were all just liberals really, yeah right:laugh:

Any evidence for Lenin supporting the idea of a nation-state?

(I don't really care about the rest tbh - some were even worse than liberals, others were left-populist social democrats.)


The mass immigration just turns the people of the poorer nations (cheers Dodger:)) into export product, whilst eroding socialism in the host nation - yet you approve?:confused:

"Eroding socialism"? What does that even mean? A society is either socialist or it's not. Either the means of production have been collectivized or they haven't. If mass immigration "erodes socialism" in the host nation, does it boost socialism in the poorer nation too?:confused:


Yes they do , or have you never heard of Che Guevara, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Chavez, Stalin, Scargill, etc etc... or wait, no I suppose those guys were 'reactionary fascist'? or something, lol , seriously WTF

A lot of 20th century big-C Communists had nothing to do with the vision of Marx, that is no news. Instead of pointing to a heterogenous collection of Stalinists and reformists, I'd be more interested in your personal opinion - surely you have independent thoughts too? You haven't explained why you think the nation state is necessary for a socialist society (so far, you have only opposed mass immigration under capitalism, FYI).

[John Nada]

ok, fair enough if you are an Anarchist:) , but I am not and I do actually believe that there is a real need for the nation state. So really, all the anarchist reasonings on this thread do not really change Carlos' views on modern day immigration.That's because you're a fascist.
Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Chavez etc... they all believed in the nation state, but I guess they were all just liberals really, yeah right:laugh:No, you're a degenerate product of liberalism. Nations are real, states are currently a fact of life. No one denies that. None of the above believed that anyone should be discriminated against because of nationality, unlike you. That is your own liberal beliefs.
Let's face it, the Marxist type socialist parties these days are hardly growing in vote count, no, it's more the likes of the right wing parties that are gaining
And as for the PB's, seems to be most immigrants dream to set up their own business in UK or US , not join a union, so like I said, most Eastern Euros hate anything that resembles any from of communism/socialism, and most likely will vote for capitalist parties Who gives a fuck what bourgeois elections say except liberals? No one votes for your fascist parties either. Biggest consistent voting bloc is "none of the above". People in the former Warsaw pact countries largely miss the revisionists' attempt at constructing socialism. And if immigrant want to set up their own business and destroy "rooted" people's businesses, good for them. I don't give a fuck.
The mass immigration just turns the people of the poorer nations (cheers Dodger:)) into export product, whilst eroding socialism in the host nation - yet you approve?:confused:"Host nation". What the fuck does that mean? If you think "your" nation is being invaded and these "invaders" are driving down wages, leave the fucking country. Help your fellow countrypeople by decreasing the population. After all, less people=higher wages amirite?:rolleyes:
Yes they do , or have you never heard of Che Guevara, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Chavez, Stalin, Scargill, etc etc... or wait, no I suppose those guys were 'reactionary fascist'? or something, lol , seriously WTF Then why don't you love them? Most called for the eventually destruction of nation-states, and the immediate destruction of oppressor nation-states that you hold so holy.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Any evidence for Lenin supporting the idea of a nation-state?

for sure, the ultimate aim of Lenin was to do away with the nation state, but he did believe in nationalism for the purposes of overthrowing imperialist domination, hence my inclusion of Ho Chi Minh in the list (a guy who many anarchists and Trotskyists oppose!)

but here is a quote from Lenin: 'The more backward the country the larger is the number of “unskilled” agricultural labourers it supplies. The advanced nations seize, as it were, the best paid occupations for themselves and leave the, semi-barbarian countries the worst paid occupations'

you see, that is now out of date, as in the West, the immigrants have equality with the local worker - good for them, for sure, but over time, and with ever increasing numbers this creates a race to the bottom for all workers in the host nation, whether local or foreign, hence empowering the bosses even further. This cannot be opposed simply by adding more migrants and calling for 'revolution' - that is simple minded nonsense. The way to do it is to restrict the power of the boss, but making it harder for him to replace workers on a whim.

as for the nation state, I'll come to that shortly

[John Nada]

for sure, the ultimate aim of Lenin was to do away with the nation state, but he did believe in nationalism for the purposes of overthrowing imperialist domination, hence my inclusion of Ho Chi Minh in the list (a guy who many anarchists and Trotskyists oppose!)All the nations you defend are imperialist. Lenin was not defending oppressor nations.
but here is a quote from Lenin: 'The more backward the country the larger is the number of “unskilled” agricultural labourers it supplies. The advanced nations seize, as it were, the best paid occupations for themselves and leave the, semi-barbarian countries the worst paid occupations'

you see, that is now out of date, as in the West, the immigrants have equality with the local worker - good for them, for sure, but over time, and with ever increasing numbers this creates a race to the bottom for all workers in the host nation, whether local or foreign, hence empowering the bosses even further. This cannot be opposed simply by adding more migrants and calling for 'revolution' - that is simple minded nonsense. The way to do it is to restrict the power of the boss, but making it harder for him to replace workers on a whim.It's not out of date and still 100% correct. Immigrants get paid less(often lower than minimum wage). People in Cambodia and Haiti still get paid less than workers in the US and France. Quit making bullshit up.
as for the nation state, I'll come to that shortlyDon't. You might drive the wages down.:rolleyes:

[rylasasin]

Carlos: This is quite unrelated, but has it ever occurred to you to use the Edit button rather than making 2-5 posts right next to each other every time you want to add in something to your last post? :glare:

[Armchair Partisan]

for sure, the ultimate aim of Lenin was to do away with the nation state, but he did believe in nationalism for the purposes of overthrowing imperialist domination, hence my inclusion of Ho Chi Minh in the list (a guy who many anarchists and Trotskyists oppose!)

Okay. National liberation movements were not at all about restricting the flow of labor, they were about securing sovereignty for oppressed minorities in the hope that this will lead to socialism easier (it doesn't, not by a significant margin).


but here is a quote from Lenin: 'The more backward the country the larger is the number of “unskilled” agricultural labourers it supplies. The advanced nations seize, as it were, the best paid occupations for themselves and leave the, semi-barbarian countries the worst paid occupations'

you see, that is now out of date, as in the West, the immigrants have equality with the local worker - good for them, for sure, but over time, and with ever increasing numbers this creates a race to the bottom for all workers in the host nation, whether local or foreign, hence empowering the bosses even further. This cannot be opposed simply by adding more migrants and calling for 'revolution' - that is simple minded nonsense. The way to do it is to restrict the power of the boss, by making it harder for him to replace workers on a whim, initially in the guise of a sensible, regulated immigration policy.

So Eastern European immigrants who go to western countries to clean toilets, sweep streets, work as waiters and do other degrading jobs just because their abysmal wage is still better than working at home have equality with local workers, who will take on skilled professions and much better-paid white collar jobs? Huh. Maybe we're living in a different world or something.

How does restricting immigration make it harder for a capitalist to swap workers in and out? Local workers can be used for the same purpose. As I've said before, there is always unemployment in market capitalism. It's a part of the system - securing full employment under capitalism is undesirable for the capitalists, and higher unemployment tends to lead to lower inflation as well. Capitalists will not simply pay more if all the immigrants disappear. They will downsize, or outsource jobs to impoverished Chinese, etc.


as for the nation state, I'll come to that shortly

Please do. I'd be disappointed if this short disclaimer was just another way to dodge the question.

[Zoop]

Because the state restricting the freedom of individuals is obscene, and these anti-immigration sentiments play directly into the capitalist's hands. It diverts attention from the real problem, and substitutes it for a scapegoat for people to blame for their ills. We all know the consequences of that.

You can't have international workers solidarity, whilst fomenting an atmosphere of cut-throat competition between workers.

All consistent communists are in favour of open borders.

[Carlos-Marcos]

It's not out of date and still 100% correct. Immigrants get paid less(often lower than minimum wage). People in Cambodia and Haiti still get paid less than workers in the US and France. Quit making bullshit up. Quote:
Immigrants do not get paid less in the West, not legally anyhow.

And seeing as the thread is about immigration to the West, then what people get paid locally in Haiti is a separate topic. So stop deflecting, thanks


Carlos: This is quite unrelated, but has it ever occurred to you to use the Edit button rather than making 2-5 posts right next to each other every time you want to add in something to your last post? :glare:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2833924)ok, good idea, Carlos will do that from now on!




So Eastern European immigrants who go to western countries to clean toilets, sweep streets, work as waiters and do other degrading jobs just because their abysmal wage is still better than working at home have equality with local workers, .

What the heck are you on about?:confused: Hordes of local workers ALSO do these jobs!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Chavez etc... they all believed in the nation state, but I guess they were all just liberals really, yeah right:laugh:


for sure, the ultimate aim of Lenin was to do away with the nation state, but he did believe in nationalism for the purposes of overthrowing imperialist domination, hence my inclusion of Ho Chi Minh in the list (a guy who many anarchists and Trotskyists oppose!)

In the context of Lenin "believing in the nation-state" and "believing in nationalism", are you talking about the idea of the right of oppressed nations to self-determination?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Capitalists will not simply pay more if all the immigrants disappear. They will downsize, or outsource jobs to impoverished Chinese, etc.........................

[re: nation state] Please do. I'd be disappointed if this short disclaimer was just another way to dodge the question.



They won't pay more, but the bosses will be less empowered, this will give the worker more advantage. And nothing to stop the bosses from having mass-immigration and outsourcing at the same time, which is of course, exactly what they do.

As for me supporting the nation state, it's all about being realistic in the here and now. OK, ultimately one day, then Marx and Lenin's dream of One-world communism may come about, but until then people need to work in manageable groups and geographical areas in order to avoid chaos.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry, maybe this has already been covered - I haven't read the whole thread, but . . .

Labour mobility is good for wages, not bad. It prevents capital from simply moving to where people are most desperate.

[Tim Cornelis]

It seems your argument boils down to, the existence of a large unskilled working class enables the capitalist to abuse their position to increase his profits, so we should punish the workers for it instead of the capitalist; and this is okay because Stalin and a whole bunch of people that are not representatives of Marxism supported the bourgeois nation-state. And you repeat this terrible "retort" ad nauseam, and make up silly slander such as "neo-liberal Trotskyite", whom are supposedly so powerful that they are in charge of government policy to facilitate "mass migration".

Communism recognises that workers do not have a country and should therefore not support "their" country, and certainly not to penalise workers. Communism abolishes the nation-state, and support of the nation-state is therefore contrary to communism. Clearly, you've revealed yourself to be an opponent of communism, and I think the discussion's run its course.

[PhoenixAsh]

Hmmm while I think Carlos' s position is at least dubious in context of his entire post history

the inconvenient reality is that up until the 90's communist & socialist parties all across Europe opposed immigration because of the negative impact it held to the working class.

[Sasha]

Oh, he will be duly restricted when this thread has ran its course, just waiting out a bit in the faint hope he will actually learn something...

[Left Voice]

ok, fair enough if you are an Anarchist:) , but I am not and I do actually believe that there is a real need for the nation state. So really, all the anarchist reasonings on this thread do not really change Carlos' views on modern day immigration.
What part of "workers of the world, unite!" don't you understand? As a Marxist, surely you support the concept of socialist internationalism? I may be an anarcho-communist but that doesn't make me some kind of anti-Marxist. Marx would have opposed what you are saying with regards to the nation state.

The reasons you are for supporting immigration control are the very same as those spouted by the reactionary ruling classes. Surely these are aparatus that all revolutionary socialists should aspire to dismantle?

[Rudolf]

Red-herring - These people are not immigrants.



Obviously you miss my point. Your reasoning that immigrants result in an increae in the supply of labour and thus we shouldn't support immigration can be applied to the groups of people i mentioned.

Why do you want restrictions placed on some people but not others for the exact same reason?

[Armchair Partisan]

Immigrants do not get paid less in the West, not legally anyhow.

Of course it isn't legal to discriminate against workers based on their place of origin, but since when have anti-discrimination laws in worker hiring/firing been worth the paper they're written on?


What the heck are you on about?:confused: Hordes of local workers ALSO do these jobs!

No shit...? Local workers are in a comparatively better position to take on the more prestigious jobs, either way.


As for me supporting the nation state, it's all about being realistic in the here and now. OK, ultimately one day, then Marx and Lenin's dream of One-world communism may come about, but until then people need to work in manageable groups and geographical areas in order to avoid chaos.

Ah, the age-old reformist and reactionary argument: "Let's be realistic and settle for scraps..." Bad news for you (or at least us): the world revolution isn't the Kingdom of Heaven or any other religious fantasy, it won't just "come about" because we've waited for it long enough. The conscious action of the working class is required to bring it closer, while being "realistic" and "pragmatic" because the revolution is "so far away" is shooting yourself in the foot - any protests, strikes, battles for reforms, sabotage etc. you do are meant to improve the chances of world revolution, not as an end in and of themselves.

As for the last sentence, you think it's impossible to organize across the borders without chaos? Makes one wonder how the globalized capitalist system would last for even a single day then...

Also, you still haven't explained to me what "eroding socialism" means.

[Alet]

I haven't read the whole thread,

You really don't have to.



Carlos, nationalist movements and thinking is only progressive, when we are talking about oppressed nations or ethnicities. Is the Western man oppressed by other nations and treated as inferior ethnicity? Does the Western man really need nationalism? You say: "Yes, nationalism will only be unnecessary once we have realized Marx' vision, but until then..." Well, that's a typical Leninist imagination of a 1,000 years long lasting dictatorship of the proletariat, which many self-proclaimed Marxists call "socialism". They also say we might realize communism, maybe we will achieve a completely classless society, which proves their ignorance of Marxist theory. I'm dying to know how you think this "socialism" will end up in communism with reactionary ideologies such as nationalism? Why do we have to oppose internationalism "in order to avoid chaos"? What is this chaos you are talking about?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, that's a typical Leninist imagination of a 1,000 years long lasting dictatorship of the proletariat, which many self-proclaimed Marxists call "socialism".

This "Leninist imagination" is also not to be found in Lenin, or Trotsky, or any revolutionary Leninist organisation. The closest you will come to it is Pablo's widely panned (even among Pabloists!) "centuries of deformed workers' states".

I'm sorry to just interject like this, but this is such a basic misunderstanding of Leninism. At any rate, it's fairly easy to answer the question in the thread title: we are against the bourgeois state telling workers where they may live, and we are against the poison of nationalism.

[Alet]

This "Leninist imagination" is also not to be found in Lenin, or Trotsky, or any revolutionary Leninist organisation. The closest you will come to it is Pablo's widely panned (even among Pabloists!) "centuries of deformed workers' states".

I'm sorry to just interject like this, but this is such a basic misunderstanding of Leninism. At any rate, it's fairly easy to answer the question in the thread title: we are against the bourgeois state telling workers where they may live, and we are against the poison of nationalism.

To be honest, I have never really read anything by Lenin, but that was not my point. It's just that all the "Marxist-Leninists" and Stalinists I have come across share the same opinion; that communism is indeed utopian, but we should prefer living under a dictatorship. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[RedWorker]

the inconvenient reality is that up until the 90's communist & socialist parties all across Europe opposed immigration because of the negative impact it held to the working class.

The convenient or inconvenient reality is that these "communist & socialist parties" were not communist or socialist in the least, at least by the definitions that go here. Nor did immigration ever have any negative impact to the working class, except by bourgeois standards. Already in the 1800s some workers' parties advocated egalitarian immigration policy. E.g. see what has been said about Marx's programme for the French workers' party.

[PhoenixAsh]

The convenient or inconvenient reality is that these "communist & socialist parties" were not communist or socialist in the least, at least by the definitions that go here. Nor did immigration ever have any negative impact to the working class, except by bourgeois standards. Already in the 1800s some workers' parties advocated egalitarian immigration policy. E.g. see what has been said about Marx's programme for the French workers' party.

Well I tend to disagree that they were not socialist or communist in the least...that is the problem...and I also know they argued it based on Marxist/Leninist literature/theory. This does not convey support...it does however illustrate that there are problems with some tendencies within the spectrum.

Nor was their argument completely unfounded...or outright dismissable.

for example the exodus of workers from a specific country would be detrimental to the strength of the working class in that country as would the influx of workers in another country provide the bourgeoisie with the opportunity to play out workers based on racism and xenophobia...as well as pressure the current markets weakening positions of workers in general...while it would in their opinion...not lead to increased international cooperation between workers due to differences in interest. It was also argued that these immigrants would be heavily exploited and would in an eventual economic down turn be the first to become unemployed, which would cause an increase in social inequality as well as put a strain on the economic system which would in reality be paid for entirely by the workers. Another argument was that immigration would lead to the deconstruction of labour protection laws that were in place and gains which were hard fought for in previous decades.

All that came to pass in one way, shape or form. As it was inevitable within the capitalist context. With the new reality of economic immigrants becoming new nationals that position did change however....and the positions started to change within the 80's, 90's onward.

[cyu]

Exhibit #1:



Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Chavez etc... they all believed in the nation state
Charge: Troll

Verdict: Guilty

Sentence: I have better things to do with my time than shovel this s**t - like looking at lolcats.

https://dafairy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/poop_cat.jpg

[PhoenixAsh]

A friendly reminder

This is the learning forum. Whether obvious troll or not...we do want to keep the learning forum a friendly environment where people feel free and secure enough to ask questions and in which these topics are addressed in a serious manner regardless of the misconceptions, and extreme dubious nature of the questions.....free of flaming

[cyu]

Actually reminds me of http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-friend-fascist-t192746/index.html?p=2833222#post2833222 =]

[VivalaCuarta]

Sounds good in theory, but when an employer has only 1 guy available to fix his car, and the worker demands £30/hr, what's he going to do?

But now there are 50 guys who can fix his car (due to immigration) and 10 of them say they will work for £10/hr who is he gonna choose?

This is a good example of Robinson Crusoe "economics" in the service of reactionary nationalist poison. Capitalism doesn't work this way. It never has. Capitalism has never operated according to the microeconomic fantasy of one guy and his car (did he build it himself?) contracting a handful of free laborers, the price of their labor being determined by "supply and demand," two numbers unencumbered by the rest of social reality. Since its origin capital has cheapened labor on a massive scale and compelled it to sell itself at a lower rate than the abstract "supply and demand," operating on an imaginary plane abstracted from the actual conditions of reproduction of labor power, would indicate. Some of those conditions include the police-state oppression that undocumented immigrants face, the massive deportations, the concentration-camps, the threat of violence from deranged bigots like "Carlos-Marcos," which brings us to this gem:


in the West, the immigrants have equality with the local worker

No they don't, and that is one of the ways that the bourgeoisie attacks the working class, which is why all of labor, native born and immigrants, must join together to fight for full citizenship rights for all immigrants.

[John Nada]

Immigrants do not get paid less in the West, not legally anyhow.You don't get to make you're own reality up. De facto, employers often do pay immigrants less, because their precarious status in the country gives the employer leverage. Which you want to make all the more precarious. Say Marcos, how are you going to stop these "alien invaders" again?
And seeing as the thread is about immigration to the West, then what people get paid locally in Haiti is a separate topic. So stop deflecting, thanksNo you stop deflecting. Cambodia was part of France at the time Lenin wrote that. The plight of workers in one country affects another. The situation in the oppressed nation is very relevant to those poor oppressor nations that you like to pretend "are being invaded". To this day, most immigrants come from the de jure "ex"-colonies(that are de facto neo-colonies) of the country of destination.

What many immigrants are fleeing is the results of what the oppressor nations in the west are imposing on "their" nation of origin. You have western-backed coups, puppet tyrants, literal military invasions, IMF loans with the condition of austerity, western capitalists driving farmers off their land and dumping of goods to drive local industry out of business. Most would be perfectly fine with staying home, if not for these imperialists you're so keen on defending.
What the heck are you on about?:confused: Hordes of local workers ALSO do these jobs!No, few workers in the west are skilled in agriculture. Few of them are willing to put up with the stupid bullshit at a lot of these shitty jobs. But thanks to imperialism, the bourgeoisie can force people to immigrate to be exploited.
They won't pay more, but the bosses will be less empowered, this will give the worker more advantage. And nothing to stop the bosses from having mass-immigration and outsourcing at the same time, which is of course, exactly what they do.Nothing will stop the bourgeoisie from hiring "foreign"(though often from ex-colonies), nothing will stop them from outsorce. How do you plan on stopping it? Do you want more people to die of dehydration in the desert or drown at sea for your fantasy of autarky. Fact is you want to give the bosses more leverage over workers, by tying their status in the country to whether the boss wants to snitch on them. You support giving imperialist states more policing powers for anti-people oppression. You want more people to die in the Mediterranean and the Southwest US deserts. That's exactly what you're xenophobic shit going to result in, more dead workers.
As for me supporting the nation state, it's all about being realistic in the here and now. OK, ultimately one day, then Marx and Lenin's dream of One-world communism may come about, but until then people need to work in manageable groups and geographical areas in order to avoid chaos.Capitalism is chaos by default. You want more people to die for some fantasy of "American jobs for Americans" or "British jobs for the British". You want to give the police more power over the workers to track down supposed "illegals". And this anti-immigrant witch hunt is going to fall squarely on non-white workers. Carlos-Marcos wants to give the police more power, and Carlos-Marcos expects the bourgeois state to give a fuck about "their own" workers.

[Carlos-Marcos]

It seems your argument boils down to, the existence of a large unskilled working class enables the capitalist to abuse their position to increase his profits, so we should punish the workers for it instead of the capitalist

No, I haven't said that - I have said that we should punish the system that allows mass immigration, and its supporters who unwittingly aid the bosses. Not the same thing at all


Hmmm while I think Carlos' s position is at least dubious in context of his entire post history

the inconvenient reality is that up until the 90's communist & socialist parties all across Europe opposed immigration because of the negative impact it held to the working class.

There you go!:)

Hallelujah.


It seems your argument boils down to, the existence of a large unskilled working class enables the capitalist to abuse their position to increase his profits, so we should punish the workers for it instead of the capitalist; and this is okay because Stalin and a whole bunch of people that are not representatives of Marxism supported the bourgeois nation-state.So now you are telling me that Castro, Che, Ho Chi Minh, and Scragill were NOT communitst/Marxists -, whatever next?? Perhaps Leon Trotsky was actually a secret BNP member? LOL,

[Carlos-Marcos]

I suggest some of you guys to look at last Sunday's edition of The Observer - a great story a few pages in about the exploitation of room attendants in UK hotels - all foreign workers, all exploited. This never happened before and only does so now because of mass immigration! Too many workers allows the bosses to treat the staff as expendable animals, and that is what they do - and most of you support it!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This never happened before

Of course it did. Do you think the room attendants in the Edwardian era were living in comfort and luxury?

But even if this were not the case, even if this was the result of immigration, you are still asking the bourgeois state, the class enemy, to hurt and kill workers who try to immigrate. That's the reality of this entire "immigration control" bullshit - concentration camps and people drowning trying to enter Fortress Whatever.

[Carlos-Marcos]

The reasons you are for supporting immigration control are the very same as those spouted by the reactionary ruling classes. Surely these are aparatus that all revolutionary socialists should aspire to dismantle?

I am a Marxist-Lenininst and believe that sensible management and regulation is the way to achieve Socialism. Look at people like Castro, he didn't go in for all this 'internationalist twaddle' and guess what - he achieved a real revolution, and you diss him for that - guess you'd be the same bunch who opposed the Viet Cong:laugh:and miners strike , just a bunch of liberals in disguise

[Carlos-Marcos]

Of course it did. Do you think the room attendants in the Edwardian era were living in comfort and luxury?I am talking about the modern day, only 20 yrs ago, when most staff were local, the conditions were far better, I know because I've done it!


But even if this were not the case, even if this was the result of immigration, you are still asking the bourgeois state, the class enemy, to hurt and kill workers who try to immigrate. That's the reality of this entire "immigration control" bullshit - concentration camps and people drowning trying to enter Fortress Whatever.What the f you on about, I'm talking about EU immigrants that jump on a 50 quid Easy Jet flight to UK. Concentration camps, get real -if migration is restricted these people will just stay in Poland or wherever, drowning at sea??? you're talking about a different topic - ever heard of the word 'sensationalism'?

Obviously you miss my point. Your reasoning that immigrants result in an increae in the supply of labour and thus we shouldn't support immigration can be applied to the groups of people i mentioned.

poster Rudolf:

Why do you want restrictions placed on some people but not others for the exact same reason? http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2833949)Because I believe that a more managed approach is a better way of achieving socialism, a free for all does not work out too well.

[Carlos-Marcos]

To be honest, I have never really read anything by Lenin, but that was not my point. It's just that all the "Marxist-Leninists" and Stalinists I have come across share the same opinion; that communism is indeed utopian, but we should prefer living under a dictatorship. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
:rolleyes:There you go, WTF, :confused::confused::confused:

Why even bother even pretending to engage with Carlos when you have NEVER read anything by the Master?

[Carlos-Marcos]

The convenient or inconvenient reality is that these "communist & socialist parties" were not communist or socialist in the least, at least by the definitions that go here. N

So, re-writing the definition book to put your point forward?

That's rather vague to say the least.

[Alet]

:rolleyes:There you go, WTF, :confused::confused::confused:

Why even bother even pretending to engage with Carlos when you have NEVER read anything by the Master?

"the Master" are you serious? I don't care about Lenin, Che or Ho Chi Minh, I want simple arguments and not quotes combined with ideological rubbish. As if you didn't have your own opinion, thus everyone on this planet has to read Lenin to understand you. When will you answer my questions?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Already answered the main one, about the nation state - I say it is needed to keep society manageable, safe and secure etc...

and of course Lenin is the Master, remember he is the guy that actually put Marx's theories into action, plus wrote a whole bunch of good shit too:)but fair enough if you are an anarcho, actuallly I quite like Kropotkin
what other questions?

and here's another one for you - without the nation state how will an NHS/Socialised medicine system work?

and as for the rest of you on the thread, how will NHS work with unchecked immigrtion, the system in the UK is close to breaking point and privatisation now, thanks to too many people using it - what say ye to that?

[ChangeAndChance]

The main thing you seem to have been concerned about since you joined is all those nasty filthy immigrants destroying British social and political life. Now they're out to get cherished traditions like "socialized" medicine, which is controlled and distributed by a bourgeois state with absolutely no interest in the working class outside of keeping them alive so they can work. The NHS is obviously the ideal system that we should continue to back after a socialist revolution instead of introducing decentralized worker cooperatives operating under a federation system. Just keep all those immigrants out of it.

Will someone use the banhammer already?

[John Nada]

Carlos-Marcos's multi-posting is so fucking annoying.
I suggest some of you guys to look at last Sunday's edition of The Observer - a great story a few pages in about the exploitation of room attendants in UK hotels - all foreign workers, all exploited. This never happened before and only does so now because of mass immigration! Too many workers allows the bosses to treat the staff as expendable animals, and that is what they do - and most of you support it!If hotel workers are going to be super-exploited, they better be British workers!:laugh:
I am a Marxist-Lenininst and believe that sensible management and regulation is the way to achieve Socialism. Look at people like Castro, he didn't go in for all this 'internationalist twaddle' and guess what - he achieved a real revolution, and you diss him for that - guess you'd be the same bunch who opposed the Viet Cong:laugh:and miners strike , just a bunch of liberals in disguiseYou are not a Marxist-Leninist, you're a liberal. You do not support Cuba(who did support internationalism), you would not be on the Vietcong's side. If a Vietnamese or Cuban person set foot in "your" country, you'd want them dead for "taken ma job!".
I am talking about the modern day, only 20 yrs ago, when most staff were local, the conditions were far better, I know because I've done it!I doubt that. You are not mature enough to be that old. And if you did work in a hotel, you would know how shitty it is.
What the f you on about, I'm talking about EU immigrants that jump on a 50 quid Easy Jet flight to UK. Concentration camps, get real -if migration is restricted these people will just stay in Poland or wherever, drowning at sea??? you're talking about a different topic - ever heard of the word 'sensationalism'?You're pulling shit out of your ass. They just had hundreds immigrants drown at sea recently (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/700-migrants-feared-dead-mediterranean-shipwreck-worst-yet). All to placate xenophobes such as yourself.
Obviously you miss my point. Your reasoning that immigrants result in an increae in the supply of labour and thus we shouldn't support immigration can be applied to the groups of people i mentioned.Malthusism is anti-Marxist. If increased population lowers wages, then leave "your" country, move to a less populated country. It's apparently only a 50 quid ticket away, according to you. Win-Win, though maybe not for "your" new "host nation", who has to deal with you.
Because I believe that a more managed approach is a better way of achieving socialism, a free for all does not work out too well.Carlos-Marcos does not want to achieve socialism. Your concept of socialism is not the one advocated by Marx and Engels. Bourgeois oppressor nations drowning and dehydrating workers, locking the survivors in concentration camps, is not socialism.
:rolleyes:There you go, WTF, :confused::confused::confused:

Why even bother even pretending to engage with Carlos when you have NEVER read anything by the Master?-I've read the "masters" and see through your shit. Still, why should I give a fuck about what they said? They weren't prophets. There's a lot of shit I disagree with.
So, re-writing the definition book to put your point forward?

That's rather vague to say the least.There's some standards laid out by Marx, Engels and Lenin for which a "Marxist-Leninist" agrees with. Many of those parties are dominated by revisionist who don't live up to those standards.
Already answered the main one, about the nation state - I say it is needed to keep society manageable, safe and secure etc...Yes, you support imperialist nations and think socialism is killing immigrants.
and of course Lenin is the Master, remember he is the guy that actually put Marx's theories into action, plus wrote a whole bunch of good shit too:)but fair enough if you are an anarcho, actuallly I quite like Kropotkin
what other questions?I have none for someone who does not agree with the supposed "Master" Lenin and Kropotkin.
and here's another one for you - without the nation state how will an NHS/Socialised medicine system work?Okay ladies and gentleman, show's over. Apparently socialism can't provide healthcare without the states.:rolleyes: A supposed "Marxist" claims communism is impossible.
and as for the rest of you on the thread, how will NHS work with unchecked immigrtion, the system in the UK is close to breaking point and privatisation now, thanks to too many people using it - what say ye to that?NHS is close to the breaking point because neoliberals(such as yourself) are gutting it, not because of immigrants(convenient scapegoats for rightists). A problem that plagues trying to "peacefully" reform capitalism, the reforms get undone. By not being shackled to capital, socialism will provide healthcare to whoever needs it, even foreigners(which many capitalist countries already do).

[Armchair Partisan]

You're pulling shit out of your ass. They just had hundreds immigrants drown at sea recently (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/700-migrants-feared-dead-mediterranean-shipwreck-worst-yet). All to placate xenophobes such as yourself.

I think Carlos-Marcos is talking about the Bulgarian and Romanian hordes who are part of the EU and thus can freely move about it and settle down (provided they can pay the travel costs), subverting British culture. Luckily we have David Cameron, champion of the working class, to warn us about this threat and act accordingly. I propose that the Chunnel is demolished and more coastal artillery be built on the British south coast.:rolleyes:

[Carlos-Marcos]

Now they're out to get cherished traditions like "socialized" medicine, which is controlled and distributed by a bourgeois state with absolutely no interest in the working class outside of keeping them alive so they can work.

total garbage because if that were the case then why are pensioners and the unemployed allowed to use the NHS? by your reasoning they shouldn't be able to

then you go on to say that the NHS is ideal, so what's it to be?


I think Carlos-Marcos is talking about the Bulgarian and Romanian hordes who are part of the EU and thus can freely move about it and settle down (provided they can pay the travel costs)Yes, you are correct,that is what I'm talking about - but mr Juan sensationalismo keeps bringing up the drowning of African refugees, and that is ANOTHER topic

[consuming negativity]

ok, fair enough if you are an Anarchist:) , but I am not and I do actually believe that there is a real need for the nation state. So really, all the anarchist reasonings on this thread do not really change Carlos' views on modern day immigration.

>there is a real need for the nation state

okay, so you're not actually a socialist, then

this would explain why you disagree with us

because you're wrong

[Carlos-Marcos]

If increased population lowers wages, then leave "your" country, move to a less populated country. It's apparently only a 50 quid ticket away, according to you.

Spoken like a true Neo-Liberal , I knew it!

Face it, this proves that you support neo-liberal policies - it's likely that your reasoning for why you support them may be different from the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, yet support them you do. You are in the same camp as them.

[Carlos-Marcos]

>there is a real need for the nation state

okay, so you're not actually a socialist, then

this would explain why you disagree with us

because you're wrong

Nonsense, because I can quote the Master again:

'Is it not, in fact, the duty of our entire Party to fight, for example, for full equality of rights and even for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination'

You see, if the Master says there can be a nation state (in certain situations), then one can be a socialist if he too, agrees with the nation state idea.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You see, if the Master says there can be a nation state (in certain situations), then one can be a socialist if he too, agrees with the nation state idea.
You mean the villain in Doctor Who? I had no idea he ever said anything about nation-states.

As for Marx, he didn't mean that nation-states were eternal, he was talking about the specific context of the capitalist epoch he (and we) are a part of. When the state is gone, so too will be nations.

[Counterculturalist]

Spoken like a true Neo-Liberal , I knew it!

Face it, this proves that you support neo-liberal policies - it's likely that your reasoning for why you support them may be different from the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, yet support them you do. You are in the same camp as them.

If you're going to play that game, then we can easily turn it against you.

You support xenophobia and closed borders, just like fascists; this proves you're a fascist.

And all fucking around aside, when you show up at a revolutionary leftist forum and start spamming the place with one thread after another attacking immigrants then I'd say those of us who think you're a fascist are on fairly solid ground. And it looks especially suspicious when it happens at the exact time that there seems to be a deluge of "third positionist" fuckwads pissing all over the forums.

[Left Voice]

I don't think there's any getting through to this guy.

I tried to explain the history of the modern nation state, how it is a relatively recent invention that dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia a mere couple of hundred years ago. Before then, most 'nations' were ill-definted territories that paid tribute to a larger ruler that held suzeranity - see China until the fall of the Qing. It's invention parallells the growth of capital and the desire for the ruling classes to control capital flows. This was completely ignored under the assumption that an anti-authoritarian communist can't possibly understand Marx.

There's no changing his reactionary views, I fear.

[motion denied]

you're far too tolerant

[cyu]

There's no changing his reactionary views, I fear. If you are debating a troll, you might not be hearing their actual views at all. The positions they take is just for the sake of debate, and may even be opposite to what they actually believe - for the truly observant, they may be able to determine the troll's actual views by reading between the lines, but that's not always easy. For some trolls, it's just a way to blow extra time on the internet. For others, they just want to waste people's time. And if you happen to be a government agent, it may be a way to gauge insurgent reaction to planned propaganda ;)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Nonsense, because I can quote the Master again:

'Is it not, in fact, the duty of our entire Party to fight, for example, for full equality of rights and even for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination'

You see, if the Master says there can be a nation state (in certain situations), then one can be a socialist if he too, agrees with the nation state idea.


You are using the Lenin quote out of context. A nation does not necessarily equate to a nation-state. Black people in the US represent an independent nation, yet they have no nation-state. Lenin is not arguing for the creation of a separate Jewish nation-state, only defending the Jewish nation's right to self determination within the context of communist struggle.

[Armchair Partisan]

Come on. Let's not give him 6 pages, he's had enough fun with this account.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

As opposed to all the other interesting shit we normally talk about. If hes a troll hes putting a lot more effort into posting than like 80% of our 'non-trolls'

[Hit The North]

The only way to oppose immigration from within the workers' movement, in the face of capitalist acquiescence to immigration, is to mobilise one group of workers against another group of workers. A fine plan for building class consciousness and solidarity! :rolleyes:

Anybody (like Carlos-Marcos) who supports the nation state is only interested in defending the existing state and is not, therefore, a revolutionary.

Anyway you look at it, OI can be the only place for such thinking.

[consuming negativity]

Nonsense, because I can quote the Master again:

'Is it not, in fact, the duty of our entire Party to fight, for example, for full equality of rights and even for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination'

You see, if the Master says there can be a nation state (in certain situations), then one can be a socialist if he too, agrees with the nation state idea.


lol

you're just seeing what you can get away with at this point

national self-determination is a necessity in a world with individual self-determination; of course nations can determine things for themselves if people can. but nations are a modern thing, and most of the groups we think of as "nations" didn't really exist as any meaningful culturally-integrated entity before the last couple centuries, after the peace of Westphalia, which established the modern state

the thing about you modern nationalist types is that your view of history is completely made up. it's like you think everything was always exactly like this. no, human society is a direct reflection of our personal development, which reinforces and is reinforced by our material development. look at the different subgroups and languages of france, spain, germany, just those specific countries. whether you're thinking on the individual level or the global level, we're all just people. most cultural characteristics are just the way it was easiest to do things in certain areas given the materials at hand. for example, not everywhere had horses or wood or whatever. so if we can recognize that, over time, things went from tribes to city-states to these massive culturally-homogenous empires. that's the thing, you don't think everybody in rome actually lived the way they did in the city, do you? nah, most people in that empire still identified with the groups they were before, just under roman control. that's the only way it could actually get so big. the idea of the entirety of france or germany or the united states all speaking one language and having the same culture, beliefs, etc. is fucking incredible

but if you're willing to go that far, why not just get rid of the states entirely and just work together in a society of communists? why keep fighting each other and using power over each other when we all hate it and wish it would go away?

[John Nada]

total garbage because if that were the case then why are pensioners and the unemployed allowed to use the NHS? by your reasoning they shouldn't be able to

then you go on to say that the NHS is ideal, so what's it to be?NHS was a progressive reform that workers fought for. Workers' relatives who are pensioners, and workers currently in the reserve army of labor, dropping dead in the streets due to lack of healthcare, is a burden on everyone, not the least of which the poor worker's family. Pensioners and the unemployed can catch transmittable diseases that also affect everyone. It's should be common sense, which as you've just proven is neither common nor sensible.
Yes, you are correct,that is what I'm talking about - but mr Juan sensationalismo keeps bringing up the drowning of African refugees, and that is ANOTHER topicIt is not another topic. It's the reality that immigrants live, that you conveniently dismiss when it makes you look bad. You want to expand this death to Bulgarians and Romanians(presumably you really mean the Roma people like all the bigots do). Getting "tougher" on European immigrants(that you must think are the "wrong kind" of Slavic Europeans and I'm being generous) means more dead people. It's expanding the capitalist state's policing powers. And how the hell are you going to stop these Roma, Slavic and Romanian "hordes"? What is "cracking down" in Carlos-Marcos's mind?
Spoken like a true Neo-Liberal , I knew it!

Face it, this proves that you support neo-liberal policies - it's likely that your reasoning for why you support them may be different from the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, yet support them you do. You are in the same camp as them.It's your(Carlos-Marcos) position that less people=Higher wages and more people=lower wages. You, Carlos-Marcos, think bourgeois neoliberal parties are worthwhile, with your cryptic support for the UKIP. You think democracy is at odds with communism, as you said in your first post. You are a neoliberal, and that's being generous. I don't believe that nonsense, but since you do, put your money where your mouth is.
Nonsense, because I can quote the Master again:

'Is it not, in fact, the duty of our entire Party to fight, for example, for full equality of rights and even for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination'

You see, if the Master says there can be a nation state (in certain situations), then one can be a socialist if he too, agrees with the nation state idea.Nations, in the sense Lenin was using it, are not states. A nation is a stable community with a common language, territory, economic life, and culture. Palestine, Kurdistan and (arguably)the Black Belt are nations without states. More than one nation can and does resided in one state, like Switzerland and the UK. Nations don't need states per se, but tend to form states under capitalism. Eventually with the destruction of the states the nations will merge and disappear under or before communism. Nations are not something sacred to preserve for all of time, but currently a reality and at the same time no one should be oppressed because of their nationality.

Most nations at the time Lenin wrote that were colonies that did not have "there own" state. Lenin argued that oppressed nations have the right to self-determination. The oppressed nations can join, separate or stay with whatever the fuck they want. The right to self-determination for oppressed nations is not the duty to secede. It is not the right to form Apartheid states or Jim Crow, which Lenin specifically condemned. It is not chauvinist shit like "British jobs for the British". It was a check on oppressor nations' chauvinism. A woman trapped in a marriage with an abusive man is not a happy marriage.

I fail to see how what Lenin said about oppressed nations' right to self-determination is relevant to the UK(an archetypical oppressor multinational state) attacking, arresting and killing immigrants from neo-colonies, semi-colonies and sub-imperialists(at best). If anything, he's on the side of just about everyone on this thread but Carlos-Marcos.

[Carlos-Marcos]

If you're going to play that game, then we can easily turn it against you.

You support xenophobia and closed borders, just like fascists; this proves you're a fascist.



It's you playing a semantics game though, isn't it.

You see, I support a regulated immigration policy, that is different to what you allege - not fascist at all, in fact nearly all countries in the World have this kind of system, and most are far from fascist.

[Carlos-Marcos]

You are using the Lenin quote out of context. A nation does not necessarily equate to a nation-state. Black people in the US represent an independent nation,

That's rather divisive logic for a Marxist, wouldn't you say?



I fail to see how what Lenin said about oppressed nations' right to self-determination is relevant to the UK

If we are going to talk about Lenin, he said that 'all proletarians must UNITE to overthrow the capitalist' - well ok, that sounds good, but it's not what happens with mass immigration.

The newcomers don't say to the boss, 'sure I'll work for the going rate of 10bucks an hr, no they will accept a LOWER wage, which then forces all other workers to do the same. The newcomer is thus clearly NOT united with the local workers - get it??

[John Nada]

It's you playing a semantics game though, isn't it.No, you uphold reactionary positions.
You see, I support a regulated immigration policy, that is different to what you allege - not fascist at all, in fact nearly all countries in the World have this kind of system, and most are far from fascist.You support capitalist policies that will result in hardship and death to workers. Your reasons are based on capitalist theories. Your rationalization is based on liberal notions of responsibility. What do you want to do to stop this imaginary problem of immigrant overpopulation?
That's rather divisive logic for a Marxist, wouldn't you say?Not anymore than saying there's a Cherokee nation, Navajo nation, Lakota nation or Puerto Rican nation.
If we are going to talk about Lenin, he said that 'all proletarians must UNITE to overthrow the capitalist' - well ok, that sounds good, but it's not what happens with mass immigration.And capitalism won't be any closer to it's death if capitalist make more immigration laws. No worker will see any improvement in their lives if all immigration ended. At best you're advocated the shittiest of reformism.
The newcomers don't say to the boss, 'sure I'll work for the going rate of 10bucks an hr, no they will accept a LOWER wage, which then forces all other workers to do the same. The newcomer is thus clearly NOT united with the local workers - get it??Apparently the local workers aren't united with the local workers either, if their union lets the boss cut wages. That is if they even bothered to form a union in the first place.

[The Intransigent Faction]

in fact nearly all countries in the World have this kind of system

Is that really supposed to be an argument in its favour? Really?

If new immigrants are not, or do not perceive themselves to be, in a position to find unionized work in order to receive the same wages, benefits, etc. as other workers, what's to blame for that? Not the new immigrants.

Some countries have immigration systems that have allowed temporary foreign workers and permanent residents but put de facto or even explicit barriers in place should they seek citizenship. So, if anything restrictive immigration policies in terms of citizenship create a two-tier system of residency that leads to non-citizens finding only the insecure work they can find.

Even if people want to come here temporarily to work, the reason that antagonizes domestic workers is not that people from elsewhere working here is bad. It's the zero-sum race of capitalism.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Apparently the local workers aren't united with the local workers either, if their union lets the boss cut wages. That is if they even bothered to form a union in the first place.
That's right, the workers aren't united in the first place just because they both happen to be 'working class' - a vague term these days at best. Same applies to middle class people.

And experience will show you that a skilled worker has little unity with an unskilled worker even if of the same 'class'.

So, this whole pie in the sky idea, that the newcomers to the country will miraculously unite with the local worker and 'bring down the bosses' is gibberish - and plays right into the hands of the capitalist.


That is if they even bothered to form a union in the first place. __________________

Now, you're sounding a bit like a Conservative, ironic isn't it - and another reason how mass immigration benefits the capitalist class - that is, the extra power the boss now has of smashing, or prohibiting unions - due to oversupply of workers. In fact, the new Tory govt is now able to bring in an anti-union law and get away with it, because of this.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Even if people want to come here temporarily to work, the reason that antagonizes domestic workers is not that people from elsewhere working here is bad. It's the zero-sum race of capitalism.

I get it, capitalism is a race to the bottom for those at the lower end of the employment spectrum, and mass-immigration is one of its mightiest weapons! And you guys support it - WTF

[The Disillusionist]

Why are we carrying out this conversation based on what the businesses will do? Why not discuss it with regard to what we will do to the businesses?

In states like mine (Idaho), it is actually conservatives who support immigration (though they oppose citizenship), for the very reasons that Carlos-Marcos has mentioned, hiring "illegal" immigrants allows them to pay lower wages.

But there is a simple fix for this..... treat immigrants like people, subject to equal treatment. Take the power of legislation away from the businesses and the problem can be solved, allowing for open borders and completely open immigration policies.

In short, if the businesses don't do what is right for the people, don't hurt the people, hurt the businesses. This has been stated before, but I figured I'd state it again.

Oh, and as for increased numbers of workers increasing boss power... Union shops and mandatory dues fix that. As an anarchist, I don't like the idea of mandatory dues, but within the capitalist system, they are effective. On top of that, immigrants don't immigrate with the goal of working in poorer conditions than everyone else, they are just as motivated to succeed and be happy as everyone else, and thus they can be reached by unions, as long as they are in living comfortably enough to be able to take the risk of joining a union (a goal that society should work towards) and unions address them directly (by communicating with them in their own languages, relating to them directly, etc.)

[John Nada]

That's right, the workers aren't united in the first place just because they both happen to be 'working class' - a vague term these days at best. Same applies to middle class people.Not vague at all for a Marxist, or any who's ever been forced to work or has lived in poverty. Your solution to this lack of solidarity is to go beg the state to protect you from those mean foreigners. As opposed to organizing and unionizing.
And experience will show you that a skilled worker has little unity with an unskilled worker even if of the same 'class'.That wasn't the case in damn near every revolution in the 20th century.
So, this whole pie in the sky idea, that the newcomers to the country will miraculously unite with the local worker and 'bring down the bosses' is gibberish - and plays right into the hands of the capitalist.Stop with the rightist bullshit of those "damn foreigners spreading communism".That's your strawperson. Immigration does not start revolutions. Reaching out to all workers, including immigrants, and overthrowing capitalist is not "playing into the capitalist's hands". It's like you playing mad-libs, all this liberal bullshit.
Now, you're sounding a bit like a Conservative, ironic isn't it - and another reason how mass immigration benefits the capitalist class - that is, the extra power the boss now has of smashing, or prohibiting unions - due to oversupply of workers. In fact, the new Tory govt is now able to bring in an anti-union law and get away with it, because of this.You keep talking about oversupply of people like it's a valid argument. More workers means more producers and consumers. There is more than enough land and resources to support everyone. If the workers don't force the capitalist to pay up, the capitalist would be more than willing to fuck over "native" workers, immigration or not.
I get it, capitalism is a race to the bottom for those at the lower end of the employment spectrum, and mass-immigration is one of its mightiest weapons! And you guys support it - WTFOne of it's mightiest weapons is stupidity, of which you got plenty. What's there to support? People are going to move. You want to stop people from moving around, and by locking everyone up in a fortress it's somehow going to help the workers.

[Carlos-Marcos]

More workers means more producers and consumers.

So tell me, what do 1000 unskilled workers actually produce?

And seriously, this comment of yours is just straight out of the neo-liberal slogan book.

[John Nada]

So tell me, what do 1000 unskilled workers actually produce?Not a bunch of shitty posts.

"Unskilled" is subjective. Workers are trained. That 1000 "unskilled" workers could fucking put a person on the moon, cure HIV, eradicate world hunger, or build a fucking skyscraper. These abstract of random numbers only exists in your head.
And seriously, this comment of yours is just straight out of the neo-liberal slogan book.You don't even know what the fuck neoliberalism is.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Ok, so these 1000 unskilled workers could be trained up into engineers, doctors, etc... but how will that happen, where will they study and who will pay for that?

[Left Voice]

Ok, so these 1000 unskilled workers could be trained up into engineers, doctors, etc... but how will that happen, where will they study and who will pay for that?
You're still using capitalistic logic here. In a post-revolutionary socialist society, then this wouldn't be an issue because all access to these resources would be free and and equal access.

I know we're talking about the ideal endgame scenario here, but if that isn't the scenario we're striving for then what's the point in being a socialist? We're revolutionary socialists, not reformists. A post-revolutionary context should see the end of capital if it is to be socialist.

[Carlos-Marcos]

because the endgame can only be reached through realistic and practical advancement. So, in the here and now, ie: the reality of the day - who will pay for Juan's army of would be university students, training to become high level pros?

[Left Voice]

because the endgame can only be reached through realistic and practical advancement. So, in the here and now, ie: the reality of the day - who will pay for Juan's army of would be university students, training to become high level pros?
Because we're not aiming to resurrect the deformed workers' states, we want a workers' revolution. This is only possible if it has participation of the vast majority of the working class, by some kind of hired army fighting on behalf of some party and dragging the working class along for the ride.

There may never be a socialist revolution, that is the reality. But if there is one, it has to be truely worker-led with workers fighting for their own emancipation. Not some kind of hired working class army fighting to achieve social democracy.

[Carlos-Marcos]

How about the idea of creating the Socialist state first and then spreading outwards through alliances?

[ñángara]

How about the idea of creating the Socialist state first and then spreading outwards through alliances?
You must be speaking about a real Socialist State, ain't you? Otherwise, it already happened in the USSR.

[Armchair Partisan]

How about the idea of creating the Socialist state first and then spreading outwards through alliances?

Alliances with whom?:confused::confused::confused:

[ChangeAndChance]

Oh my god, this thread is like a car crash: it's so horrible I just can't look away. I think its been demonstrated quite clearly by now that Carlos-Marcos is a socdem Tankie who tries (and fails miserably) to justify his reactionary political positions. Will someone at the very least restrict him?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Alliances with whom?:confused::confused::confused:
Other socialist states that are of a like mind.

Yes, the Soviet Union attempted it, but due to WW2 and the Cold War it had to impose it's will, rather than create genuine alliances.

However, a second attempt could be made.

How about it?

(Chavez attempted it, and certainly an alliance of sorts has developed between Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia)