Global freedom of movement

[Unicorn]

I support the elimination of borders and letting people migrate freely. This would create some challenges to social security systems but I think they could be overcome. Or do you just support free movement of labour meaning that only workers and their families should have the right to move freely?

Socialist countries like the USSR have had pretty strict border controls but I support the freedom to immigrate to socialist states also.

What are your thoughts on the matter? If you are a Marxist what kind of migration policy should be added as an "immediate demand" in a program of a communist party?

[mykittyhasaboner]

i agree, borders are just imaginary lines when you get right down to it. i think that if a communist party were to come to power in any country, they should let anyone in.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

socialist states may implement border controls in oder to better control reactionary elements in and outside of their borders and their effects on workers in that socialist state

[BobKKKindle$]

It is essential we support the removal of all barriers to human movement, including opposition to points-based system which restrict admission to people who posses useful skills. Migrants are economically beneficial, as has been shown in the UK, where migrants comprise an important part of the labor force employed in public services such as healthcare. Border controls simply reinforce the notion that workers should seek to identify as members of a national community - something that makes building solidarity between workers a more difficult task.

[Unicorn]

socialist states may implement border controls in oder to better control reactionary elements in and outside of their borders and their effects on workers in that socialist state
I think the law enforcement could do the job of controlling reactionaries. No need for border controls.

[Sendo]

it would be best if we had freedom of movement and simply register with whatever province/state/country you're in at that time. Take in as much as you can, and link up socialist states who can share resources and pension plans and social security. Hell redraw borders by region not by old colonial borders. Central America is the most ridiculous example, with its little carved up fiefdoms. IThe nations are so small that everything from el salvadaor to panama should be contiguous, it's like every 10 miles you hit a new border. Same for bullshit states like Rhode Island, make New England one unit, but maybe break up superstates like China with truly autonomous provinces, not Hong Kong, I mean the stuff in the west (it wouldn't be the first time, it's spent centuries with north and south under different regimes). Beijing micromanages everything it seems like with these ridiculous illusions of anyone having any meaningful impact on the places where they live.

[RedFlagComrade]

I voted for complete freedom of movement-but I have a question for other leftists-whats the point of calling nationalism and anti-imperialism leftist if were just going to break down the borders?Are you calling for a complete phasing out of the notion of nations or merely calling for freedom of movement between them?



Hell redraw borders by region not by old colonial borders. Central America is the most ridiculous example, with its little carved up fiefdoms. IThe nations are so small that everything from el salvadaor to panama should be contiguous, it's like every 10 miles you hit a new border. Same for bullshit states like Rhode Island, make New England one unit, but maybe break up superstates like China with truly autonomous provinces, not Hong Kong, I mean the stuff in the west (it wouldn't be the first time, it's spent centuries with north and south under different regimes). Beijing micromanages everything it seems like with these ridiculous illusions of anyone having any meaningful impact on the places where they live.

What your saying is kind of silly-there are ethnic reasons for many of these borders way beyond your or my understanding.And the old colonial borders have been there for so long that any reorganisation could be just as provocative.What youre calling for is just as ridiculous as what the imperial powers did-youre redesigning countries as you see fit with no regard for the people.Even a border rezoning with the mass support of the people would likely cause a horrendous war.If certain people feel oppressed within a certain nation-area sure in fact certainly let them declare independance but dont randomly preempt it.

[Red_or_Dead]

What has to be considered is that freedom of movement is one thing, and border control another. One does not necesarily exclude the other.

Im aboslutely in favour of freedom of movement, but I think that border controls should remain for as long as states exist (as once states cease to exist, border control will be impossible anyway). Visas and stuff like that should be abolished asap, tho. Just identifying yourself at a border crossing (passport or ID card) would be enough, imo.

[Sendo]

I voted for complete freedom of movement-but I have a question for other leftists-whats the point of calling nationalism and anti-imperialism leftist if were just going to break down the borders?Are you calling for a complete phasing out of the notion of nations or merely calling for freedom of movement between them?




What your saying is kind of silly-there are ethnic reasons for many of these borders way beyond your or my understanding.And the old colonial borders have been there for so long that any reorganisation could be just as provocative.What youre calling for is just as ridiculous as what the imperial powers did-youre redesigning countries as you see fit with no regard for the people.Even a border rezoning with the mass support of the people would likely cause a horrendous war.If certain people feel oppressed within a certain nation-area sure in fact certainly let them declare independance but dont randomly preempt it.

what I'm saying is silly? Are Uighyrs and Tibetans and Aztlan Chicanos pissed off or is it just me? And have you ever heard of pan-americanism or ALBA? I didn't just come up with these one day, sitting in my room. It seemed like the best accomodation: give self-governance to places like East Turkestan and unite the fractured pieces of latin america. They all have the same plundered economies, with the same thirst for populist economics and a similar ethnic background: a mixture of indigenous and mestizo communities.

Nicaraguan nationalists are not as much "Nicaragua is t3h best country evar!!11!" as they are "Yankees suck." I really can't believe that you'd think uniting central america is a bad idea. The countries are tiny and restrict freedom of movement. There are a lot of problems with undocumented workers moving from country to country.

[BobKKKindle$]

I have a question for other leftists-whats the point of calling nationalism and anti-imperialism leftist if were just going to break down the borders?Are you calling for a complete phasing out of the notion of nations or merely calling for freedom of movement between them?

The ultimate objective of all socialists is to eliminate the system of nation states so that people no longer identify as members of a nation, but only as human beings.

However, Trotskyists do offer unconditional support to national liberation movements. This is based on the role of nationalism in relation to the goal of promoting proletarian internationalism. The working class in the oppressor nations will not revolt against capitalism if they are subject to the influence of nationalist ideology of the ruling class, and so to break the influence of this ideology it is necessary to provide support to, and promote the struggles of nations facing imperialist oppression. Lenin created this position based on Marx's analysis of Ireland, and applied it generally to all anti-imperialist struggles.

[Luís Henrique]

However, Trotskyists do offer unconditional support to national liberation movements.

I don't think "Trotskyists" have an unified position regarding this, or whatever else.

Luís Henrique

[nvm]

I support freedom of movement only for the workers under the DoP (we don't want bourgeois escaping with their gold or leaving Siberia:))
After the end of the class struggle ends and we have communism I would say freedom of movement for everyone should be essential.

[Dust Bunnies]

If there is only a handful of Socialist or Communist countries then only leave it open for workers and families. We don't need the bourgeois in the country. Once the world is Communist we should all unite as the Super Duper New USSR :p

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think "Trotskyists" have an unified position regarding this, or whatever else.

Luís Henrique

When he says "Trotskyists" he really means his tiny faction within some insignificantly small Trotskyist party. All other self-proclaimed Trotskyists are actually evil Stalinists, as are all other leftists who don't belong to his party.:lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I believe there should be complete freedom of movement between socialist states, including the elimination of border controls. However, border controls should be maintained along the lines dividing socialist and capitalist societies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ My first option is global freedom of movement for workers only (because ousted classes need to be liquidated). This is because you cannot have socialist societies coexisting alongside capitalist societies (by this, I also include proletocratic ones).

[Edric O, maybe it's just a typo on your part. Perhaps you're referring to the coexistence of merely proletocratic societies alongside bourgeois-controlled ones - two distinct types of capitalist societies.]