Mass Immigration

[SovietStudent]

In the Warsaw Pact countries there was immigration but it was nothing like on the scale that Europe has experienced in the last twenty years. Immigrants in the DDR were only allowed to stay for three year contracts and their contacts with Germans were limited.

We also rarely hear much about immigration to the Soviet Union except in the case of students.

If you want to emigrate to China or North Korea it will be extremely difficult, especially if you want to naturalise.

Why was there such limited levels of immigration to the socialist countries during the Cold War and why by contrast, were the communists in France, the US and UK so keen to promote mass immigration?

Does it have something to do with the unique situation of post-imperial powers?

I would be interested to hear everyone's perspective.

[John Nada]

I don't think a lot of policies adopted by "actually existing socialism", including on immigration, are relevant or desirable. They were wrong on a lot of things.

Why was there such limited levels of immigration to the socialist countries during the Cold War and why by contrast, were the communists in France, the US and UK so keen to promote mass immigration?

The PCF, CPGB and CPUSA never "promoted mass immigration". In fact they often took a chauvinist line to varying degrees on immigration. Nor could they "promote mass immigration" if they wanted to. But primitive accumulation can.

Imperialism(monopoly capitalism) has displaced much of the peasantry. Poor peasants can't compete with big agribusinesses from imperialist nations like the US. Climate change and desertification has made much of the land barren. Often they're driven off the land by force. They're not going to just sit there and starve, so they must migrate to the cities for work.

But often the domestic industry is unable to compete with imperialist-capitalist either. Local markets are dumped with commodities from advance capitalists countries. Things like welfare, public works and subsidies are slashed under neoliberal "reforms" to pay off debt to 1st-world countries. Imperialist interventions reap havoc, decimating entire nations. An Enclosure on a global scale, which leaves the 1st world countries, which benefit from and are responsible for this mess, as the global metropolis from which the global countryside moves for work.

The petty-bourgeoisie may whine about the "harm" immigrants supposedly cause. But that's xenophobic demagoguery to deflect blame away from the bourgeoisie(the exploiters) and towards immigrant workers(the superexploited). Leftists should defend immigrants as fellow workers from opportunist reactionaries who seek to spread hate for their own gains.

[Sewer Socialist]

I don't think a lot of policies adopted by "actually existing socialism", including on immigration, are relevant or desirable. They were wrong on a lot of things.The PCF, CPGB and CPUSA never "promoted mass immigration". In fact they often took a chauvinist line to varying degrees on immigration. Nor could they "promote mass immigration" if they wanted to. But primitive accumulation can.

Imperialism(monopoly capitalism) has displaced much of the peasantry. Poor peasants can't compete with big agribusinesses from imperialist nations like the US. Climate change and desertification has made much of the land barren. Often they're driven off the land by force. They're not going to just sit there and starve, so they must migrate to the cities for work.

But often the domestic industry is unable to compete with imperialist-capitalist either. Local markets are dumped with commodities from advance capitalists countries. Things like welfare, public works and subsidies are slashed under neoliberal "reforms" to pay off debt to 1st-world countries. Imperialist interventions reap havoc, decimating entire nations. An Enclosure on a global scale, which leaves the 1st world countries, which benefit from and are responsible for this mess, as the global metropolis from which the global countryside moves for work.

The petty-bourgeoisie may whine about the "harm" immigrants supposedly cause. But that's xenophobic demagoguery to deflect blame away from the bourgeoisie(the exploiters) and towards immigrant workers(the superexploited). Leftists should defend immigrants as fellow workers from opportunist reactionaries who seek to spread hate for their own gains.

while the comintern parties did not strongly support immigration (or immigrants, to be more precise), those countries had large numbers of communists outside those parties, especially the french.

i think the real distinction is between the policies of those "socialist" states vs. the stances of western communists. the warsaw pact states were tasked with governing their populations and managing capital, reinvestment, etc.

the more left-wing communists (even anyone to the left of the Comintern, which would be most communists who did not belong to those "official" communist parties), however, were not tasked with these things and were free to adopt stances that backed the proletariat as much as they liked.

[(A)]

A "Socialist" state has no interest in the working class save for their obedience. The centralization of power (Economic and Social) by the state is the only interest of the state.

[Molotov1848]

The proletariat belongs to no nation and being an immigrant doesn't make one less of a proletariat/worker.

The immigration laws of things like the Soviet Union by the time of the cold war is irrelevant, as we are talking about a state which at that point was not revolutionary and did not function very differently from any other capitalist state.
Same thing goes for any currently existing "socialist" state.

World communism requires the abolishing of borders and thus enabling complete freedom of movement for all. If you are a communist this should be a no-brainer, to suggest the idea of communism with borders is downright ridiculous.

[Sewer Socialist]

A "Socialist" state has no interest in the working class save for their obedience. The centralization of power (Economic and Social) by the state is the only interest of the state.

a socialist state is an oxymoron.

that said, all states have an interest in their constituents, especially the proletariat. they need them / us. modern states need us to reproduce the capital they manage, to produce value. they certainly don't want to give us too much, since that cuts into profits and reinvestment. but they also can't give us too little, since there wouldn't be many people to buy anything. we also wouldn't be able to reproduce our capabilities as workers. and we would be forced to fulfill our needs outside the market, somewhat weakening the control by state and capital.

the state does not simply exist to demand obedience, or to bask in its own power. don't be silly!

[(A)]

People seem to add social ideology's to Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned/possessed by the society as a whole.

Extremely nationalistic and authoritarian states can own the means of production... by definition they would be socialist. (Hitlers National socialism)
Liberal states (Republics) that are democratically controlled (Or not) can be Socialist where the means of production and the state authority is wielded by the Majority of workers (Lenin's Republic of socialist soviets)
A Libertarian socialist society (Syndicalism) could possess or manage the means of production using soviets and workers/municipal counsels (Luxemburgism)
Anarchism is naturally socialist as it does not really on ownership over the means but in basically all cases calls for the free use or democratic management of the means.

So no a socialist state is not an Oxymoron... just a bad idea.

[SovietStudent]

An interesting fact is that migrant workers in East Germany generally lived there for a maximum period of three years. Their contact with locals was restricted and they were forced to live in boarding houses.

Guest worker women who had childrem with German men were forced to have abortions.

I do not understand how such policies could exist in a socialist country. Sounds more like fascism.

[Sewer Socialist]

People seem to add social ideology's to Socialism. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned/possessed by the society as a whole.

Extremely nationalistic and authoritarian states can own the means of production... by definition they would be socialist. (Hitlers National socialism)
Liberal states (Republics) that are democratically controlled (Or not) can be Socialist where the means of production and the state authority is wielded by the Majority of workers (Lenin's Republic of socialist soviets)
A Libertarian socialist society (Syndicalism) could possess or manage the means of production using soviets and workers/municipal counsels (Luxemburgism)
Anarchism is naturally socialist as it does not really on ownership over the means but in basically all cases calls for the free use or democratic management of the means.

So no a socialist state is not an Oxymoron... just a bad idea.

so did you read past the first sentence of my post or nah?

your weird convoluted definitions for things were really not the point of what i wrote.

[(A)]

You make no point. You offer no argument to support a position contrary to mine.
If anything you help my argument by reaffirming that the state needs us to conform. That without the Exploitation and subjugation of the working class the state
cant exist. The state demands obedience because it needs us to preform our "civic" duty to produce, reproduce and die for god and country.

Even a state where the means of production is owned by "Society"; I.E. the state... The leadership of that nation requires our obedience to its laws and for us to continue the capitalistic cycle of production, reproduction and death.
The U.S.S.R. comes to mind where the state murdered, imprisoned or exiled any worker who was not pro-state and then commanded the entirety of the working classes labor be controlled in order to provide materials for war and luxury's for the new class.

[Radical Atom]

All right that’s it Democracy, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am not in the mood for a "fight" and that’s why I’ve been “tolerating” (the same way you “tolerate” a parasite in your intestines before a doctor can remove it from your body) your spouting of sectarian, idealist, edgy filth for weeks now; maybe because I hoped you actually were here to learn, or that someone would’ve already put you in your place by now. It turns out it hasn’t been so in either case, so it’s going to have to be my job.You can take it personally if you want, but I assure you this is as much advise as it is a warning, you are making an absolute idiot out of yourself. Some people might tolerate your bullshit, but not everyone in this site is as complacent as to demolish the standards of this board down to the level of your ilk.
How can you even type the shit you do with a straight fucking face? Do I really need at this point to explain why the only people that spew the shit you do have to either be trolls or abject fucking idiots? Not the kind of idiot that is ignorant because he doesn’t know any better, but has the capacity of pulling himself out of his absolute ignorance; no, no… The kind of idiot who knows better, who can know better, but is so dishonest, so full of himself, so utterly bankrupt in his integrity that chooses to remain an uneducated moron, in his little bubble of stupidity where he is safe from the actual challenges of mortals. You are a philistine.
Against my better judgement, let’s assume you are not a sectarian troll, who wants to piss off some “commies” or “authoritarians, man”; if that’s the case you sound like an upper-middle class brat that picked an identity for himself; a vacuous, pathetic, anti-intellectual, idealist and reactionary one at that. How fucked and pathetic the anarchist movement must be if you are to be even a small sample of it. Louise Michel, Durruti, Goldman, Malatesta must be spinning in their graves right now.
You have in this time continuously proven and shown that you have no fucking idea of anything of what you are talking about, that is when you actually “talk” instead of petty sloganeering and shoveling shit on people dead many decades ago who did more in their toilets for the worker’s movement than you’ll ever do in a thousand lifetimes. You don’t type on a keyboard, you vomit through a keyboard.
Seriously, stop talking shit and start reading, learning and educating yourself or get the fuck out. This is not a typical internet personal GTFO attack, I mean those words; don't even bother to reply until you've thought them through, either do not log in for a while, read, research, learn and come back when you can actually meaningfully contribute or leave and don't come back. In either case you’ll stop publicly humiliating yourself.

HOW THE FUCK IS SOCIALISM “JUST” AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM/IDEOLOGY? Don’t you see how much is wrong with that statement?! The first being that NOTHING IS APOLITICAL, especially economy, economy is politics. AS IF COMMUNISM COULD BE SEPARATED FROM IT’S “SOCIAL” POLITICS! COMMUNISM IS CONCERNED WITH THE TOTALITY. CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM ARE NOT SOMETHING EXTERNAL OR INCIDENTAL, THEY ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE SYSTEM, AND THEY DO NOT MANIFEST THEMSELVES “JUST” IN “DA ECONOMY (tm)”. Social relations, cultural phenomenons, science, political events… are all shaped by capitalism and capitalist ideology. Even those that oppose it are defined by their very own opposition to capitalist hegemony! There is no outside capitalism. You cannot be an “economic” communist or “social” communist.
And yes, I'm using socialist and communist interchangeably because they were and still can be, unless we get into neoliberal "socialist" parties or social democrats.
A COMMUNIST MUST BE SO IN THEIR ENTIRE BEING (the social, the economic, the "spiritual"...) OR THEY ARE NOT A COMMUNIST. Otherwise you just picked meaningless label for yourself, a consumer identity like any other.

AND HOW THE FUCK IS A STATE OWNING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION INHERENTLY SOCIALIST YOU CRETIN? Private property can easily exist in such a state, so can wages, “employers” (bosses) and even corporations. Capitalism and centralized economy are perfectly compatible. Not to mention that corporate power can easily explicitly or implicitly seize state power!

FASCISM AND BY EXTENSION, NAZISM, WAS A MOVEMENT BORN AS A REACTION AGAINST THE WORKERS MOVEMENT, AGAINST SOCIALISM. IT WAS ONLY SOCIALISM ONLY INSOFAR AS THE NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE NEEDED A RIGHT WING VERSION OF SOCIALISM TO ACTIVELY FIGHT THE ACTUAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT. Something which assimilated many of the values of the left (solidarity, unity, fraternity, discipline) while protecting private property and the interests of the national elites.

FASCISM FAVORS CLASS COLLABORATION AND CORPORATISM, IT MAINTAINS CAPITALIST RELATIONS ONLY DIFFERENTLY FROM TYPICAL LIBERAL BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACIES.
Even in their own words FASCISTS OPPOSE SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM! EVER HEARD OF JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM? They advocated a “third way” of politics that claimed to be neither socialism nor capitalism, which it claimed to oppose. The problem is that one claims does become true, and while they did virulently oppose international socialism, capitalist relations during fascist Italy and the Third Reich remained, in a different form, but a form equally oppressive, exploitative, dehumanizing and miserable. Fascism sought to and successfully destroyed organized labor in the countries it took hold of.

Even fascist boneheads know that, for fuck’s sake, you have to be a troll. Your crap is literally painful to read, it makes me physically sick to read the garbage you spew non-stop 24 7.

If you'll excuse me, I need a shower after enduring so much vile filth.

[(A)]

Sorry I piss you off but I assure you my intent is lively debate and intelligent discourse. If you cant offer that then stay in the shower as you are no use to my continuing education.

My original post

A "Socialist" state has no interest in the working class save for their obedience. The centralization of power (Economic and Social) by the state is the only interest of the state.

clearly used quotations over the term socialist as every state that has been ruled by a communist party has been Socialist only by the very margins of that words meaning.

I totally agree that communism calls for the FULL and THOROUGH examination of all systems and relations built by the previous states and the rejection of the Unjust ones; Also known as Anarchism.
Rejection of the very system of oppression that allow for capitalism to exist. For some reason tho a lot of people here and a few scattered about want to retain the systems of social control that created capitalism in the first place.
That is why i aptly use the term Liberal Socialist because that is what they are. A socialist who rejects critical thinking for mindless praise of several failed states and a few Social democrats who lead some great revolutionary feats but
but where ultimately unable to end Capitalism and create communism;... ANY WHERE they tried.

Every state created by these great revolutionary's managed to retain state control over the means of production and maintain the capitalist mode or production.

/

the state does not simply exist to demand obedience, or to bask in its own power. don't be silly!

Then what does the state do? What exactly are you defending. You STILL have not made clear what your argument is against my statement that a "Socialist" state has no interest except its own preservation and the preservation of its powers to that end.

Please explain; preferably with a civil use of language, what is is you are trying to argue.

Hell I will make it easy.

A) That the society and a workers state are one and the same and that the government has only/mostly the interests of the workers at heart.
OR
B) That communism cant exist within the framework of a state or a government because the existence of two classes makes communism impossible.

If it is the latter then I will whole heatedly agree with you as state system in all its forms; Feudalism, Liberalism, Totalitarianism, Etc... are completely against the principles of Communism. That these systems are what must first be abolished in order for the new; truly socialist society to emerge and to lead to Communism.

If the former then you need to read some more books; preferably by people not Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin.

Try some Kropotkin, Bakunin or some Proudhon.


Or just stay in the shower.