One-World, no borders, ok, then what?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Now, I'm getting plenty of stick for standing up for some forms of nation state, but let's say we finally get to the point of a 'One-nation-World' - no borders, great right? But hang on a mo, because very, very likely there will either be one mega central government, or just quasi capitals run by right wingers. IOW: no reason to expect that just because borders disappear then socialist paradise will appear.

Bigger does not mean better.

So, how does no borders necessarily advance the socialist cause?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Communism will abolish nations and the state. It's not that no borders advances our cause, it's that our cause advances no borders.

[Tim Cornelis]

Borders are gone in communism, not capitalism. And again with this weird assumption about strategy. No one believes that mass immigration or abolition of borders will result in a communist revolution. I would really advice to invest some time in reading Marxist and radical literature. In the words of Mao, "no investigation? No right to speak".

[Црвена]

Or...there's no state or government or "quasi-capitals" at all, because there's no need for them, because the means of production will be socialised? Sort of the definition of socialism?

As DND said, we never suggested that passing some law annulling borders or whatever is going to bring about socialism, but that socialism will render the nation-state as it exists in bourgeois society pointless. And therefore it will cease to exist.

[John Nada]

You(Carlos-Marcos) have yet to explain what these borders are supposed to keep out. You can't use the "more people=less money leftover", because there is no money under communism.

There already is a "mega central government" and "quasi-capitals ran by right-wingers". It's called the United States of America.

[The_Southern_Leftist]

It seems like you belong to the Marxist-Leninist branch of leftism possibly. The nation state can exist in lower stages of communism ie Socialism. However the higher stages of communism result in a class-less, state-less, and money-less society. It will not be a sudden change and socialism will need to be built. A state is essential for most forms of communist theory in the lower stages.

[Q]

It's not that no borders advances our cause...
Actually, yes it does. Living in a unified state creates a far better position for the working class. This was the basis of the argument of why the Marx & Engels team argued for a unified German republic (before the unification of the second Reich, including Austria-Hungary at the time), an argument that can find its parallel today in the EU. Socialism was just as impossible in 1860's Prussia as it is today in Germany or Greece. We need a global vision due to the interconnectedness we inherit from capitalism.

Does this mean Marx & Engels favored the second Reich under chancellor Bismarck? Obviously not. Likewise, communists should fight against the bureaucratic nature of the EU today. We need to raise the banner, again, to wage the battle for democracy on a continental scale, thereby laying the basis of positively surpassing the EU by having a continental-wide workers movement fighting for these goals.

This all wouldn't be possible if we were divided by borders.

[John Nada]

Actually, yes it does. Living in a unified state creates a far better position for the working class. This was the basis of the argument of why the Marx & Engels team argued for a unified German republic (before the unification of the second Reich, including Austria-Hungary at the time), an argument that can find its parallel today in the EU. Socialism was just as impossible in 1860's Prussia as it is today in Germany or Greece. We need a global vision due to the interconnectedness we inherit from capitalism.Marx and Engels also demanded the independence of Ireland and Poland. They opposed the independence of the South Slavs not because it'd divide the Ottoman proletariat, but because the independence movements were dominated by pan-Slavist who wanted to unite with Tsarist Russia, which was very reactionary. The Poles and Ukrainians could've said a thing or two about how good the Tsar treated fellow Slavs.

Unity for the sake of unity is not always a good thing. The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was not a victory for the Asian proletariat, it's demise not a loss. Decolonization wasn't "dividing" the British, French, Portuguese, Belgian, Dutch, Spanish and American proletariat more than it already was. If anything, the liberation struggles radicalized workers in the dominate country.
Does this mean Marx & Engels favored the second Reich under chancellor Bismarck? Obviously not. Likewise, communists should fight against the bureaucratic nature of the EU today. We need to raise the banner, again, to wage the battle for democracy on a continental scale, thereby laying the basis of positively surpassing the EU by having a continental-wide workers movement fighting for these goals.

This all wouldn't be possible if we were divided by borders.I hope it's possible to have a revolution even if we're all divided by borders. There is still cars, trains, boats, planes, phones and the internet to move over those borders, though xenophobic laws make it harder to do so. I presume that a revolution in North America won't care about the current borders anyway.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Actually, yes it does. Living in a unified state creates a far better position for the working class.
I'm not entirely sold on that argument. In some ways, it might make organizing a little easier, but it's not necessarily going to better generate class consciousness.

As for Marx and Engels, they didn't universally argue for unified states. In some instances, they actually argued for some nations gaining independence from larger states.

At any rate, in order to abolish nation-states, you need to first abolish the capitalist order. You can't really reverse that.