/left/ - Leftist Politics

Viva La Revolution!

Mode: Reply

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Remember to follow the rules

Max message length: 4096


IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan


Open file (192.14 KB 314x359 begone pol.png)
Comrade 09/08/2016 (Thu) 16:38:29 [Preview] No. 2134
Is the abolition of borders really a "pro porky" position like people on /leftypol/ keep saying? It sounds like crypto-racist polshit to me.

Wouldn't the abolition of borders necessitate the abolition of private property? If that happens then the entire basis for the exploitation that drives 3rd to 1st world immigration would evaporate, negating the need for massive immigration in the first place.
dunno, i guess we'd still want borders so we can try out different political systems in different areas, but ofc people should be allowed to move from one to the other at will.
>>2134
>>2135
Nation states are bad but we hate them for completely different reasons then porky
Borders are a tool for state control of population, the border in fact aids in the use of illegal labour - as you can kick them out once they demand payment. Thinking in the terms of us-them and borders stops us from forming a united struggle, you can't "protect" the proletariat of one country against global capital.

Porky loves his borders, and don't let illiterates tell you otherwise.
I concur with >>2135. If a government goes bad and adopts policies I dislike (e.g., control of cryptography or killing the gays), I can flee to a less shitty country. If there aren't any other countries, then we're all fucked.

Is there a reason why we can't have a large number of independent communist countries with lax-to-nonexistent borders?
>>2141
one problem with having borders is that people could go to one country with awesome free education and then when they or their kids are educated they move to one that puts all its money into the economy and only builds shit schools.

germany attempts to solve this problem internally by forcing its porky-states to pay compensation to berlin and other poor regions.
>>2138
Pretty much this
>>2134
>It sounds like crypto-racist polshit to me.
It is. Last time someone postet an archived leftypol-thread I was shocked how many of the posters have already strasserite-like positions...
>>2138
But even porky notices that the nation states are too limiting for todays productive forces, which is why he wants shit like TPP, TTIP, CETA and massively gains profit from the shitty working conditions in east asia.
>>2163
>But even porky notices that the nation states are too limiting for todays productive forces, which is why he wants shit like TPP, TTIP, CETA and massively gains profit from the shitty working conditions in east asia.

THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE BORDERS! You can't organize with the fucking slaves in SEA because you can't meet with them, communication is difficult, and public rhetoric (racism) can be completely controlled.
>>2167
>what is the internet
This thread sound like a bunch of USA idiots, incapable of seeing that their own country is a perfect model as to why the elimination of borders under capitalism serves no-one but the capital owners.

To some extent, yes, the existence of borders does enable the capitalist to play some shell games, such as instituting "tax competition" and corrupting weak nation states to act as tax havens.

Without the borders, however, capital behaves in an even worse manner. Wealth is stripped out of less favoured communities and production relocated to which ever communities will work for the smallest pittance.

Ergo, the destruction of the economic system must precede any attempt at removing borders.
>like people on /leftypol/ keep saying?

The problem with /leftypol/ is that they try to convert /pol/tards over to left wing economic positions, by pandering often to the ideals of the right and saying "No, the left doesn't believe that, only retarded Liberals do!" or some shit. I see it all the fucking time on the board.

This is why all the time I see discussion on /leftypol/ about "Oh no the Bolsheviks weren't actually Jews" or whatever. Honestly, if you are left wing, why would you give a single fuck about Bolsheviks being Jews? Who gives a shit?

> I was shocked how many of the posters have already strasserite-like positions

That's because pandering to /pol/views in order to convert /pol/tards over (or being ex-/pol/ themselves), they've basically become class conscious /pol/tards.

I've heard people refer to /leftypol/ as "Class conscious reactionaries" and that is pretty apt in my opinion.

When honestly, their discussions on racial issues or gender equality or immigration look 1:1 identical to /pol/, then you have a problem.

Also /leftypol/ is legitimately filled with like 15 year olds doesn't help.
>>2236
I can see why no-one wants to use this board when whining pseudoleftist plebbitors seem to be the main contributors.
>>2237
You came all this way to post and didn't even bring an argument.
>>2235
But this doesn't mean, the duty of socialists would be the preservation of bourgeois nation states. If a borderless world would be beneficial for the capitalist relations of productions, there wouldn't be any borders. But if you look at former real existing socialist multiethnic states, in which capitalism was re-introduced like yugoslawia, czechoslovakia or the soviet union, they all were separated. Nation states with borders are useful and important for the capital. Borders are no obstacle for multinational corporations, and it is in fact benificial for them, that the first world workers have angst to lose their jobs to oversea and hating the third world workers as a result.
>>2237
>pseudoleftist
You don't happen to be the wsws+waifu faggot from leftypol?
>>2241
>But this doesn't mean, the duty of socialists would be the preservation of bourgeois nation states.
Indeed.

>If a borderless world would be beneficial for the capitalist relations of productions, there wouldn't be any borders
NAFTA, EU, US, TTIP, TTP, CETA, ad infinitum... All supranational trading blocs seeking to erode borders within their own members.

>But if you look at former real existing socialist multiethnic states, in which capitalism was re-introduced like yugoslawia, czechoslovakia or the soviet union, they all were separated
Certainly they disintegrated, but how many of those territories have maintained their independence since? The overwhelming majority have been assimilated by either the EU or Putin's CIS. The whole "collapse" appears to have a result of internal factions turning on each other and jockeying for position in the new order, Balkan bloodfeuding aside.

>Borders are no obstacle for multinational corporations, and it is in fact benificial for them and it is in fact benificial for them, that the first world workers have angst to lose their jobs to oversea and hating the third world workers as a result.
Absolutely not. Regardless of the existence of boarders, you would still have capital playing one community off against another, as I stated previously.
>>2238
>You came all this way to post and didn't even bring an argument.
Why would I want to argue with an SJW? You're an insane cultist.

>>2245
No.
Abolishing private property doesn't immediately put an end to economic disparity, since where the infrastructure and resources are physically located is still in the "first world" countries.
>>2247
>Why would I want to argue with an SJW? You're an insane cultist.

You can try and mask your incompetence with bravado, but you're not fooling anyone.
Yes, it is.

Porkies receive cheap labor from open borders.
>>2256
This is why the (also economic) most right wing parties want to strengthen the nation states and close the borders.
>>2257
Yes, exploiting their own native populations more will certainly fix things.
>>2134
you can't abolish borders under capitalism
It would fuck everything up for capitalists
If you don't believe me, go back to /pol/
Open file (52.52 KB 786x630 1478471563753-pol.png)
Why are you so much against pol?
>>2322
Because supporting nationalism just fortifies the power of the nation state, which by extension increases the powers of porky. Also, the "presenting my idea as rational and logical, while you're all just screaming lunatics and/or baffled by my intellectual superiority" meme is such a dead horse.
Porky and the state tend to work together, no borders means no states, no states means porky loses a significant chunk of power.
>on bunkerchan
>Why are you so much against pol?
>>2322
we wuz good boys who just want to have our happy white commune. Ignore the fat that half our board are libertarians and the wouldn have us return to 19th century imperialism
>>2322
We're not bloody nazi's
>>2325
why is porky pushing so hard for open borders then? You know there are other companies besides Koch and Trump right?
>>2468
Open Borders =/= No borders

And the bourgeois and petty-bougeois classes aren't a homogenous mass. Don't build up your politics by negating theirs, but look for a proletarian position.
And such can only be an internationalist one.
>>2475
Good post
>>2468
>Open borders for trade = open borders for people

TOP KEK
>>2558
Porky is pushing for both. Can never have enough consumers.
>>2325
That would also mean the porcines simply become the new heads of state and the cycle of cancer would be able to continue.
Capital is free to roam
MoP are free to roam
The Worker is not free to roam
That is Porky globalism.

In Socialism, every aspect is free to move.
Borders should exist for the sake of naming convention and analysis simplification, just as territorial name, and for the sake of having intermediary oversight of Municipal Rule.
No sense in getting your freedom from The State only to lose it to The Big Deal Families In Town.
>>2235
>Ergo, the destruction of the economic system must precede any attempt at removing borders.
Ideally speaking yes, but we both know that if porky wants his cheap labor, and profit he'll do anything. You're also ignoring the main point that capitalists LOVE cheap labor and one of the easiest ways for them to get it is through strict immigration policies while subsequently having tough border protections. This will let him exploit illegals for a significantly garnished wage as they'll have no opportunities for amnesty, or any labor rights for that matter.
The argument goes both ways, and I think that it's within the left's interests to allow immigrants, both illegal and legal to have the same labor protection rights as domestic citizens as it inherently hurts their ability to exploit workers.
>>2576
Tell me more on how letting cheap labour come...
well...

Basicaly, this was tha main question of Trump VS Hillary, AKA let cheap labour in and promote neoliberalism, or keep cheap labour out and go full protected market and back to pre WW2 US.


>>2586
>Implying they aren't.


>>2593
This.

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?