[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / baaa / choroy / film / loomis / occult / sl / veganism ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 6a144ea5a157121⋯.jpg (200.22 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, GettyImages-1132938278.jpg)

 No.138558

 No.138560

It's like someone multiplied snitch and cuck to produce the most despicable bootlickers possible.


 No.138565

>>138560

Based "importing third world serfs to own the racists" anon


 No.138566

>>138565

This.

Serve capital to spite alienated workers. Genious.


 No.138567

File: fab06e55f442848⋯.jpeg (66.8 KB, 680x659, 680:659, D3vYXp6UIAAvJ6j.jpeg)

>>138565

>we must stand with the state in its struggle against brown workers


 No.138568

File: a83ad740fa3ca0f⋯.jpg (16.53 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 12229707.jpg)

>>138567

>We must stand with the capitalists who want cheap maids and cleaners for their McMansions


 No.138571

>>138560

Paramilitarism is bootlicking


 No.138572

>/leftpol/-non socialist idpol discussion.


 No.138573

File: 75e80b259ad6cb7⋯.jpeg (55.94 KB, 666x803, 666:803, Dq2fjdhWwAENM9G.jpeg)

>>138568

>we must cooperate with the apparatus that ensures broke immigrants stay cheap labor to prevent immigrants being used as cheap labor


 No.138590

File: 8309c489a4872bd⋯.jpeg (57.75 KB, 600x603, 200:201, 105474A6-C9F5-4357-A78E-0….jpeg)

Imagine being such a fucking loser you would willingly oppress other people on behalf of the state for free


 No.138602

>>138590

Give him a skull mask and black sun shoulder patch


 No.138627

>>138560

>paramilitary bad!

>importing millions of scabs good!

Wowo really kickin' off the revolution there :)


 No.138629

hot take: republicans are republicans


 No.138631

File: f476c3b2628e860⋯.png (292.02 KB, 1926x3138, 321:523, revengeroftheproletariat.png)

>>138627

>helping the state is revolutionary

>if workers ain't white they're scabs

mein gott


 No.138639

File: 17afc463bd09023⋯.jpg (110.13 KB, 300x300, 1:1, vomit blood.jpg)

>thinkprogress.org

How about a real source?


 No.138669

>>138568

Good point, let's make it easier for them to become citizens so that porky can't exploit them as easily. Then work with them to bring back the guillotine


 No.138698

File: ed1d5c40457baed⋯.jpg (20.04 KB, 600x400, 3:2, 030.jpg)

>>138631

>No they are NOT scabs they are your fellow workers who are just willing to work for less in worse conditions, get it through your fucking skulls you racists


 No.140115

>>138698

>I don't know what "scab" means


 No.140136

>>138631

Several bullshit narratives you're spewing in that short post.

1. Both Europe and the United States governments are actively trying to import more people from third world countries. Not only does this add cheap labor, but it also divides the population against itself with different ethnic groups. The British did this in Africa, the Romans did this 2000 years ago. A group of citizens doing non-state sanctioned activities against the wishes of the state is inherently revolutionary.

2. Nobody said they were scabs on the basis of being nonwhite. Sicilians and the Irish were scabs in America as well and they are european. It's just that the majority of scabs come from South America nowadays, or Africa/middle east. Higher skilled workers come from China or India.

3. You're lying through your teeth about them not being scabs. There is an ongoing populist revolt with leftwing tendencies that the ruling class is trying to break with a foreign population that is willing to work for less pay.

This sort of lying infuriates the average worker and explains why the rightwing is just swooping in and eating up the populist revolts in their countries. A smart leftwinger would be diplomatic with these revolts as the right is, but being a virtue signalling liberal faggot makes that kind of hard, huh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJI_jiKCMa4


 No.140158

>>140115

>No no no only organized labor shouldn' t be fucked over by third worlders happy to work for less, if you're not in a union… well have fun competing with Paco and Raj lmaooooo


 No.140159

>>140158

You butcher the word "scab" the way that /pol/ butchers "spook."


 No.140171

I wish they were actually scabs, that would at least mean the workers are actually striking.


 No.140172

>>140159

And you're engaging in petty semantics, aware that deep down most of your 'fellow worker' illegals don't give three fucks about class struggle or Marx, they just want to chase dollar bills


 No.140174

Fuck you, you don't pull that "aw shucks, we're all just stuck in this shitty depressing hellworld tryna chase that bread, man" shit with cops, self-employed business owners or actual scabs so why the fuck do you pull it with immigrants?


 No.140178

File: 508af6ec8313597⋯.jpg (109.48 KB, 619x1000, 619:1000, alunyawarning.jpg)

>>138698

>scab means poor not strikebreaker

>>140136

>Several bullshit narratives you're spewing in that short post.

lol

>Both Europe and the United States governments are actively trying to import more people from third world countries.

And they're not doing it with border hoppers, they're doing it with visas for mostly skilled labor. They've maintained carceral borders and enforcement of such, the notion that states have rolled out the red carpet and are mass importing scary brown people scabs to own the white race real working class is a delusion straight from /pol/.

>Not only does this add cheap labor, but it also divides the population against itself with different ethnic groups. The British did this in Africa, the Romans did this 2000 years ago.

That reinforces the need for internationalism and solidarity, not nativism. Uncle Karl said as much himself as to the problem with immigration.

>A group of citizens doing non-state sanctioned activities against the wishes of the state is inherently revolutionary.

They turned over the people to Border Patrol, that is doing the state's job for free not going against its wishes.

>You're lying through your teeth about them not being scabs.

"Scab" specifically refers to a strikebreaker, if the border jumpers had been bused in to work at Stop & Shop or as teachers in Oakland then they would be scabs. As they were not used in such a capacity then the border hoppers are just poorer than your average burger, which doesn't make a scab unless you've twisted the term to utter meaninglessness. If we're going to redefine scab from "strikebreaker" to "someone poor enough to accept a shit job" then buddy you've just made most of the proletariat scabs.

>There is an ongoing populist revolt with leftwing tendencies that the ruling class is trying to break with a foreign population that is willing to work for less pay.

The recent strikes haven't been fought with bringing in immigrants, at this point it has just been intimidation and police. Or are these actually existing labor movements not a real "populist revolt"?

>Nobody said they were scabs on the basis of being nonwhite

You'd have to be an absolute fool to not notice the opposition to immigration being racialized, particularly when coming from the type of people to call themselves "United Constitutional Patriots". This isn't a worker's movement worried about someone taking a job for less, it's ass hurt reactionaries with too much money and time on their hands.

>Sicilians and the Irish were scabs in America as well and they are european

And the backlash to Sicilians and Irish was often racially motivated, particularly from liberal and reactionary actors. The groups who tended to organize these "scabs" were socialists.

>This sort of lying infuriates the average worker

I'm guessing your "average worker" doesn't exist outside of your head.

>explains why the rightwing is just swooping in and eating up the populist revolts in their countries.

Have you considered that the way reactionaries swoop in is opportunistic and is only so they can get into power? If you're looking to get elected then do fuck all I guess that's a good strategy but it's not so great for abolishing capitalism.

>A smart leftwinger would be diplomatic with these revolts as the right is

Yielding to any demands a "revolt" may have isn't being diplomatic, it's either opportunistic or cowardly. A "smart leftwinger" goes and participates in labor movements, which looks to be the various trikes that have been popping up and not some cops camping in the desert.

>but being a virtue signalling liberal faggot makes that kind of hard

If you think opposition to the state and reformism is liberal than you have no idea what liberalism actually is. Read a book, fuck read a wikipedia article.

>>140171

There's a fairly big stop & shop strike going on at this moment fam. That certain posters here would rather whine about real and imagined immigration policy instead of talk about actually existing labor movements is more indicative of their priorities as socdems than the current state of labor movements.


 No.140179

>>140172

>And you're engaging in petty semantics

No, faggot, you don't get to ruin the word "scab" for the sake of your petty jingoist theorylet horseshit.


 No.140180

File: 40b0c37ac2d00f0⋯.webm (1.09 MB, 316x240, 79:60, IWW.webm)

>>140178

>If we're going to redefine scab from "strikebreaker" to "someone poor enough to accept a shit job" then buddy you've just made most of the proletariat scabs.

Exactly. That retard's definition of "scab" would include Joe Hill and half the old IWW.


 No.140182

I, for one, welcome our overlord's cheaper maids and cleaners


 No.140184

File: e442979aa7d0d90⋯.jpg (290.81 KB, 937x552, 937:552, henryandxi.jpg)

>>140180

At this point I think they would have condemned the Haymarket Martyrs and sided with the state of Illinois if they were alive in the late 19th century.


 No.140185

>>140184

I'm pretty sure most immigrants legal or illegal aren't European socialists, anarchists, and trade unionists attempting to escape decaying empires though


 No.140189

>>140178

>And they're not doing it with border hoppers, they're doing it with visas for mostly skilled labor.

I'll just ignore the fact that only a small portion of migrant visas are for skilled labor (most are "family reunification" primarily based on chain migration from the "jus soli" citizenship that the US is almost unique in having or "diversity quota"), and point out that even highly skilled visas are overwhelmingly used by "bodyshops" to bring in scabs.

>the notion that states have rolled out the red carpet

Rolled out the red carpet for porkies who depend on immigration to keep the proles in line, yes. Porky is slurping millions of economic immigrants every year, and deploying every political tactic available to ensure that practice continues and grows further.

>That reinforces the need for internationalism and solidarity, not nativism.

Betraying your fellow workers for scraps, instead of collaborating across the planet to fix 3rd-world poverty, isn't solidarity.

>Uncle Karl said as much himself as to the problem with immigration.

His observation wasn't an endorsement of mass economic immigration on your shitlib pseudo-humanitarian grounds, but a cynical pragmatic endorsement of its destructive effects on accelerationist grounds.

>"Scab" specifically refers to blah blah blah blah blah

This is sophistry akin to "it's not ackshually censorship unless the state does it" hairsplitting against the sanctity of free expression.

>You'd have to be an absolute fool to not notice the opposition to immigration being racialized

>And the backlash to Sicilians and Irish was often racially motivated

Wow, yeah, no shit. Issues ranging from environmentalism and consumer safety to banking and corporate consolidation have been seized on by racists, I guess we'd better drop those too for apparently having too many problematic shitlords that might become leftists if we didn't spergout at them.

>imagined immigration policy

Like the annual 1.4 million and growing imaginary permanent legal immigrants that imaginarily break records every year with the imaginary visas they're issued by imaginary legislators because of imaginary lobbying by imaginary porkies?

>>140180

>that retard's definition of "scab" would include Joe Hill and half the old IWW

Who used it in exactly the same way?

<But the role of scab passes beyond the individual. Just as individuals scab on other individuals, so do groups scab on other groups. And the principle involved is precisely the same as in the case of the simple labor scab. A group, in the nature of its organization, is often compelled to give most for least, and, so doing, to strike at the life of another group. At the present moment all Europe is appalled by that colossal scab, the United States. And Europe is clamorous with agitation for a Federation of National Unions to protect her from the United States. It may be noted, in passing, that in its prime essentials this agitation in no wise differs from the trade union agitation among workmen in any industry. The trouble is caused by the scab who is giving most for least. The result of the American Scab's nefarious actions will be to strike at the food and shelter of Europe. The way for Europe to protect herself is to quit bickering among her parts and to form a union against the Scab. And if the union is formed, armies and navies may be expected to be brought into play in fashion similar to the bricks and clubs in ordinary labor struggles.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1904/01/the-scab/306194/

Organizing current immigrants is no more contradictory to halting the arrival of their replacements, than freeing slaves contradicted with ending the slave trade.


 No.140191

>>140189

>Who used it in exactly the same way?

You mean that they used it to describe foreign-born workers who migrate to wherever the jobs are when the local population is neither organized nor striking? Boy, they must have absolutely hated themselves.


 No.140194

File: 5a863f3fb471442⋯.gif (11.75 KB, 491x282, 491:282, unionp3.gif)

>>140191

>neither organized nor striking

I'm sure that's super likely to happen if quotas shoot through the roof


 No.140198

>>140194

>that graph

OH NONONONONO-


 No.140202

File: 2d8504244acd9fe⋯.gif (460.67 KB, 500x322, 250:161, socdemgang.gif)

>>140189

>I'll just ignore the fact that only a small portion of migrant visas are for skilled labor

The fact remains the biggest source of immigration is legal and the biggest source of illegal immigration is overstaying visas, not border hopping. While I'm sure that the cowboys playing at the border would love to go around demanding to see ID from brown folks and ☘️foreigners☘️, it's telling that their fears are primarily concerning border management.

>Rolled out the red carpet for porkies who depend on immigration to keep the proles in line, yes

Of course the state works for porky, this should be common knowledge on a socialist board. The issue is not that the state works for porky, but the assumption that the state work for us. Over a century of social democracy and leninism indicates that it doesn't and it won't.

>Porky is slurping millions of economic immigrants every year, and deploying every political tactic available to ensure that practice continues and grows further.

Yeah, it's almost like society is designed to work for porky and that capitalism continually causes misery to the proletariat in order for the bourgeoisie to thrive. If porky is capable of deploying every political tactic then perhaps we shouldn't be engaging porky over the management of society in an arena he controls but instead be organized outside of the political arena.

>Betraying your fellow workers for scraps, instead of collaborating across the planet to fix 3rd-world poverty, isn't solidarity.

Yes, and strengthening porky's immigration control is part of that. You're not making it harder for pedro to come in, you're giving porky more shit to threaten pedro with if he starts asking for money or organizing with cletus and jamal. For someone aware of porky using political tactics you don't seem to understand how he uses them when it comes to polices you think would be good. Your opposition to immigration is like our sister board's opposition to US imperialism, a superficial analysis of the underlying issues and a strategy based on impotently combating a symptom rather than address the cause. Any "immigration reform" is going to benefit the bourgeoisie whether it enables more traffic or makes immigration more difficult, no liberal or reactionary politco is going to legislate against their interests and if socialists are at the point of wielding such power they might as well kick off the revolution instead of managing capitalism for porky.

>His observation wasn't an endorsement of mass economic immigration on your shitlib pseudo-humanitarian grounds,

I have not made any argument approaching liberal or humanitarian, or did you redefine those terms like you did scab?

>but a cynical pragmatic endorsement of its destructive effects on accelerationist grounds.

He didn't endorse or condemn immigration, he pointed out that it was one of the many mechanisms capitalism uses to suppress wages and the conflict wasn't between immigrants and natives but proletarians and bourgeoisie. If your conclusion from this is that we should work towards managing capitalism to make it better instead of abolishing it, then you should take off your flag and put on something more appropriate.

>This is sophistry akin to "it's not ackshually censorship unless the state does it" hairsplitting against the sanctity of free expression.

What you're doing is akin to claiming that the police and military are socialism because lol the government does stuff, might want to watch them stones in your glass house bucko. Especially if you're gonna bemoan free speech after calling someone a liberal.

>Wow, yeah, no shit. Issues ranging from environmentalism and consumer safety to banking and corporate consolidation have been seized on by racists, I guess we'd better drop those too for apparently having too many problematic shitlords that might become leftists if we didn't spergout at them.

Well if you find yourself arguing for ecofascism or killing da joos as a solution to enviormental issues or capitalism then you should drop it or stop calling yourself an anarchist or a communist.

>Like the annual 1.4 million and growing imaginary permanent legal immigrants that imaginarily break records every year with the imaginary visas they're issued by imaginary legislators because of imaginary lobbying by imaginary porkies?

Thank you for being so butthurt at "imaginary" you proved my point. Come out of the closet and accept the rose.

>Who used it in exactly the same way?

Jack London wasn't a member of the IWW, he was in the Socialist Party and was born in burgerland if I'm not mistaken. Funny story about them, Victor Berger, one of their most prominent members sort of like Bernie Sanders a century ago, viciously attacked the IWW and syndicalism in general before the party purged its militant labor organizers along with much of its left wing. Perhaps not the best folks to look for support on what Joe Hill or the IWW thought.


 No.140206

>>140202

>The fact remains the biggest source of immigration is legal and the biggest source of illegal immigration is overstaying visas, not border hopping.

Sure, but nobody in the thread, the other anon you were responding included, said otherwise. Whereas your characterization of them or their visa categories as "skilled labor" is outright deceitful.

>it's telling that their fears are primarily concerning border management.

I wonder, could that possibly be because "both" "sides" of the "debate" on mass economic immigration are monopolized by neolibs their and shills attempting to distract from solutions (decreased quotas for legal visas, and anti-employer/consumer penalties for abusing illegal labor) that actually work? I'm sure pretending there's nothing to be done about it and pointlessly antagonizing anyone who doesn't want to be undercut by migrants will lift the tone of discourse.

>If porky is capable of deploying every political tactic then perhaps we shouldn't be engaging porky over the management of society in an arena he controls but instead be organized outside of the political arena.

Or we could do both, like last time when we successfully instituted protectionism, terminating the Gilded Age as part of a formulated political program by organized labor. Reformism and direct action are not mutually exclusive.

>Any "immigration reform" is going to benefit the bourgeoisie whether it enables more traffic or makes immigration more difficult

Interesting that it did the exact opposite last time, creating the greatest period of prosperity in history, until divisions within the left caused organized labor to collapse in the 1960s.

>I have not made any argument approaching liberal or humanitarian,

Alright, there was nothing in your posts arguing that immigration is a fix for global poverty, fair enough.

>He didn't endorse or condemn immigration, he pointed out that it was one of the many mechanisms capitalism uses to suppress wages and the conflict wasn't between immigrants and natives but proletarians and bourgeoisie.

No, he did endorse it, on the specific basis of heightening class tensions and ultimately hastening revolution, i.e.: accelerationism. My conclusion is that this tactic has historically proven itself ineffective.

>What you're doing is akin to claiming that the police and military are socialism because lol the government does stuff

Socialism has no necessary relationship either way with government. Whereas, the overall state of the labor market (including low barriers to transnational regulatory and human rights arbitrage) has an ironclad, mechanical relationship with the effectiveness of organized labor action.

>viciously attacked the IWW and syndicalism in general before the party purged its militant labor organizers along with much of its left wing

And precisely that caused London to distance himself from it soon afterward.

Speaking of the IWW and its constant invocation on the issue of visa quotas, though, did the IWW actually even have any kind of official position on this? Because it feels rather anachronistic. Obviously, quasi-related issues such as deportations being wielded against IWW activists were significant concerns, but that's not really the same thing.


 No.140233

>>140189

>Rolled out the red carpet for porkies who depend on immigration to keep the proles in line, yes.

That would imply that the workers are in any danger of being out of line in the first place. Where are the strikes and the uprisings that immigration is supposedly suppressing?

>This is sophistry akin to "it's not ackshually censorship unless the state does it" hairsplitting against the sanctity of free expression.

It is using a word the the way that it is defined, which is something that a person engaged in analytical thought should do.

>>140194

>un-sourced inforgraphic used as an argument

You still have /pol/ shit stuck to your boots.

>>140202

>Come out of the closet and accept the rose.

Yeah, guy, just admit it. Your whole "protectionism ended the Gilded Age" shtick is evidence enough that you are a Rosa Killer.

>>140206

>pointlessly antagonizing anyone who doesn't want to be undercut by migrants

Where exactly is this direct competition between native workers and immigrant workers? The programing departments at Amazon and Google?

>terminating the Gilded Age as part of a formulated political program by organized labor

>creating the greatest period of prosperity in history

>divisions within the left caused organized labor to collapse in the 1960s

How many levels of idealism are you on right now?

>did the IWW actually even have any kind of official position on this?

The IWW's position was that workers are not rightly citizens of any country and are instead only beholden to the rules of industry.


 No.140274

>>140233

>Where exactly is this direct competition between native workers and immigrant workers?

H1B visas in the united states for highskilled workers, dirty jobs for lowskilled workers. The United States has a history of importing a foreign population to undercut the wages of the local population (say like if you're building a railroad in the 1800's or have a cotton farm in the south or a mill in brooklyn). In modern times, we have jobs at the meat processing plants that get away with paying less than minimum wage. Same thing with some fruit that must be handpicked.

The biggest competition between native workers and immigrants is political representation. Let's be honest with one another and admit that idpol is easier to inflict than it is to get rid of. The immigrant workers complain about shitty working conditions (and rightly so) but they're posited against the native population. In America, it's rednecks vs. blacks vs. hispanics. If the immigrant population complains about its conditions, it's blamed on the native proles who are asked to raise their taxes. local workers get pissed that their labor is being taxed and distributed to the immigrant workers, so they rail against "socialism and gommunism".

If you guys disagree just look that absolute clusterfuck free-for-all that is American racial politics

What kills me the most is that some leftists will defend porky's immigration on the grounds of opposing racial fascists. This is how fascists gain their power, because the native proles ally with the native bourgeois and permit capitalism with some liberal reform. What is Trump besides liberal reform voted for by white workers pissed off because "dey took err jerbs!"


 No.140276

>>140274

What you don't seem to understand is that porky will always find some way to pit workers against each other. If it's not immigrants it will be some other scapegoat. That's not a reason to throw our fellow workers under the bus.


 No.140292

>>140276

>What you don't seem to understand is that porky will always find some way to pit workers against each other

And tacitly endorsing the importation of millions of workers with obvious differences only makes that job much, much, easier, fuckwit.

Again, you lot don't pull this "we're all just workers maaaaaaaaan *does a fat bong rip*" shit with actual scabs, so why do immigrants get sympathy?


 No.140300

File: 41145241126fd67⋯.png (72.48 KB, 747x477, 83:53, gilded-age.png)

>>140233

>Where are the strikes and the uprisings that immigration is supposedly suppressing?

Being suppressed by (in concert with the other half of neoliberalism, free trade) the resultant low-pressure labor market and (and consequently nonexistent labor organization), duh.

>using a word the the way that it is defined

Think of the way "murder" is used to refer to unjust killings that are technically legal, or "ghetto" referring to ethnic dumping grounds that aren't legally segregated, or "slavery" referring to exceptionally exploitative contractual obligations that technically aren't slavery. The mechanism of one group of workers undercutting another in a betrayal of class solidarity is identical to that of a scab walking across a strikeline.

>un-sourced inforgraphic

Are you attempting to dispute the historical correlation between low immigration and powerful unions, pretending you're too retarded to reverse-search the graph to the CIS article I can only imagine you've had thrown in your face before if you're soooo skeptical, or just being annoying?

>Your whole "protectionism ended the Gilded Age" shtick

>How many levels of idealism are you on right now?

Please explain what historical event you imagine the attached graph describes inb4 recycled Heritage Foundation piffle about "muh WWII", notice the trend started years before that.

>you are a Rosa Killer

You know nearly everyone back to Marx considered parliamentary reformism one among many viable praxis not mutually exclusive to others, right? The mockery to which "socdems" have been subjected isn't in reference to literally everyone and anyone, no matter how radically revolutionary in other ways, that so much as touches a ballot box, but to people who unironically think that a "muh both systems" "mixed economy" is a desirable end goal in and of itself, rather than merely a means to an end. Pragmatic use of reformism and direct action together, depending on conditions at any given moment, as dual power, is and always has been the most reliable and most widely adopted way forward.

>The IWW's position was that workers are not rightly citizens of any country and are instead only beholden to the rules of industry.

Yes, but that still doesn't describe any coherent position for or against the increase of quotas that poured boatloads of people over the sea, only that people everywhere must work with each other to fight capital.

>>140292

It isn't really even migrants' fault. The mere fact that the neolib system is designed to fuel the destruction of their countries and funnel them here, is what must be dismantled.


 No.140470

>>140274

>H1B visas in the united states for highskilled workers, dirty jobs for lowskilled workers.

Programing departments at Amazon and Google and strawberry farms.

>In modern times, we have jobs at the meat processing plants that get away with paying less than minimum wage.

So do restaurants and coffee shops.

>Same thing with some fruit that must be handpicked.

I wonder how much the kulaks and agribusinessmen would have to pay before Americans would actually do that job.

>The biggest competition between native workers and immigrants is political representation.

Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>If you guys disagree just look that absolute clusterfuck free-for-all that is American racial politics

Reality TV and internet pearl-clutching.

>>140292

>with actual scabs

Fuck off with that weak language game bullshit.


 No.140483

File: a5ba5cbfed730f0⋯.png (334.88 KB, 825x800, 33:32, heunderstandsthegame.png)

>>140300

>Being suppressed by (in concert with the other half of neoliberalism, free trade) the resultant low-pressure labor market and (and consequently nonexistent labor organization), duh.

So, there is none. Glad we cleared that up.

>The mechanism of one group of workers undercutting another

Accepting an offered wage is not "undercutting." It would only be undercutting if the current group were making any kind of collective demand, which it is not. Immigrants are not stepping into a dispute between local bosses and local workers, because there is no such dispute. Protectionist fags are blaming the immigrants for the market that brought them there.

>Are you attempting to dispute the historical correlation between low immigration and powerful unions

I will dispute the assumed causation all day. Wanna go?

>notice the trend started years before that

Oh yeah, it looks like it started all the way back in 1938… oopsie!

>You know nearly everyone back to Marx considered parliamentary reformism one among many viable praxis not mutually exclusive to others, right?

You know that superstructural institutions like the state are not capable of creating lasting changes to the material base and can, at best, only ever serve as a vehicle for organization, right? They sure as fuck don't produce artificial labor shortages inside the global capitalist system or strip the ruling class of its economic dominance.

>dual power, is and always has been the most reliable and most widely adopted way forward

Is that what you call bourgeois electoralism?

>Yes, but that still doesn't describe any coherent position for or against the increase of quotas that poured boatloads of people over the sea, only that people everywhere must work with each other to fight capital.

It does not try to. Instead, it recognizes the plain fact that such quotas and policies are entirely reflections of the immmediate interests of the ruling class and not the collective will of the populace of any supposed nation.


 No.140489

>>140292

>And tacitly endorsing the importation of millions of workers with obvious differences only makes that job much, much, easier, fuckwit.

No, not really. Like I said, if it's not immigrants it would be something else.

Cut your puppet strings and spread class consciousness, the only way to take down porky is if the working class is unified.


 No.140492

bye bye baboons

we don't want you nor do we need you

bye bye


 No.140501

>>140470

>Programing departments at Amazon and Google

Invariably well under the median compensation of their native peers

>So do restaurants and coffee shops.

Another den of immigrant labor abuse, and another primary industry group among open borders lobbyists.

>I wonder how much the kulaks and agribusinessmen would have to pay before Americans would actually do that job

Fascinating question, let's find out! If the price is too high, it might cause farm "owners" to reconsider the terrible conditions they impose in the fields, or giant crosscountry agribusinesses to be replaced with something more locally accessible to labor.

>>140483

>So, there is none.

Yup, not until we tighten the labor market back up again like last time.

>Accepting an offered wage is not "undercutting."

>Protectionist fags are blaming the immigrants for the market that brought them there.

I wonder why those "offers" can be made, and how "the market" brings them here? If there was nobody desperate enough to accept those terrible terms allowed access to them, would porky be forced to offer better again?

>it looks like it started all the way back in 1938

Effects of WWII on the US were piddling until well into 1942, when mass mobilization and controls for war production radically altered the economy.

>only ever serve as a vehicle for organization

Reforms make further organization easier to do and harder for porky to fight, where organization then builds support (and fearful concession from porky) for further reforms. Under typical conditions, the two work hand-in-hand to ratchet labor's power up and tie down porky.

>Is that what you call bourgeois electoralism?

Dual power is simultaneously seizing control of the current state, and building new alternative systems beneath it, so that whether socialism ultimately happens due to peaceful reform or violent revolution, labor will be in the strongest possible position to exploit that opportunity.

>not the collective will of the populace of any supposed nation

Interesting that majority support is for lower quotas right now, and back then passage of quota reductions was in large part the result of labor union agitation.

>>140489

>if it's not immigrants it would be something else

Nuclear hot take you got there. Do you have a similar opinion on past eliminations of entire classes of labor, such as slavery, child labor, and the truck system?

Also, keep in mind that closing the borders to both free trade and mass economic immigration simultaneously, would let the air out of the imperialist neocolonial balloon in the 3rd world.


 No.140509

File: b903da3a5ddf135⋯.jpg (30.94 KB, 308x239, 308:239, American Freedom Made In C….jpg)

>>140501

>Invariably well under the median compensation of their native peers

Well, ZOMG. What would Google and Amazon do without H1B visas? Leave

>Fascinating question, let's find out! If the price is too high, it might cause farm "owners" to reconsider the terrible conditions they impose in the fields, or giant crosscountry agribusinesses to be replaced with something more locally accessible to labor.

Top kek. So where is the "finding out" that we are supposedly doing? Does that mean that we are going to assume in our noggins that state regulations will make agribusiness break up into peasant farming? We are going for Jefferson's utopia now? Never mind how spectacularly inefficient it is or that most cannot afford to pay peasant prices for food.

>Yup

Immigrants confirmed for not being scabs.

>I wonder why those "offers" can be made

Because the owners control the means of production

>and how "the market" brings them here?

By devastating their local productive forces and relocating production here.

>If there was nobody desperate enough to accept those terrible terms allowed access to them, would porky be forced to offer better again?

No, he would find something else to invest in that provides a higher expectation of profit. Do you even Capital?

>Effects of WWII on the US were piddling until well into 1942

Maybe if you discount the plain fact that all of their industrialized competitors' industrial capacity was suddenly shifted into military production leaving them the primary suppliers of numerous commodities. Of course that would be both disingenuous and fucking stupid.

>Reforms make further organization easier to do and harder for porky to fight, where organization then builds support (and fearful concession from porky) for further reforms.

Reforms are not the goal. They are never anything but temporary concessions designed to weather the real threat from revolutionaries.

>Dual power is simultaneously seizing control of the current state, and building new alternative systems beneath it

Explain how this seizure of the state progresses. Do we make a Labor Party popular enough to control the government which will then legitimize supposed lesser parallel structures?

>Interesting that majority support is for lower quotas right now

Are you seriously arguing that the state responds to the will of the majority? Come on, even you know that's bullshit.

>back then passage of quota reductions was in large part the result of labor union agitation.

You and your idealist fantasies. The frontier got filled. The gold rushes dried up. All that free land that they stole from the Injuns had people on it. They didn't need an endless flood of foreign poor anymore. That is what, quite obviously to everyone at the time, happened.

>Nuclear hot take you got there

"Take?" Ha! Offshoring already runs laps around immigration as any kind of downward force on the cost of labor in the capitalist centers.

>Also, keep in mind that closing the borders to both free trade and mass economic immigration simultaneously…

…is a hilarious exaggeration of the effect that the state has on the economy.


 No.140514

>>140509

>Leave

>he would find something else to invest in that provides a higher expectation of profit

And do what, sell to the "emerging Asian middle class"?

>So where is the "finding out" that we are supposedly doing?

Hopefully in the future, since Donny "Great Big Beautiful Door™" Trump hasn't actually touched the quotas.

>We are going for Jefferson's utopia now?

More of a middle ground, wherein subsidies aren't dumped into growing cash crops in the middle of nowhere, while population is squeezed as tightly as possible into cities, and nearby suburban/rural greens are left entirely fallow or used to grow lawns.

>leaving them the primary suppliers of numerous commodities

Exports and imports alike as a share of US GDP were already plummeting since 1920, and only briefly spiked on entering the war.

>They are never anything but temporary concessions designed to weather the real threat from revolutionaries

Like legalizing strikes, unions, closed shops, and free expression?

>Do we make a Labor Party popular enough to control the government which will then legitimize supposed lesser parallel structures?

That, or we dismantle the old state a piece at a time and hand its government responsibilities to new syndicalist entities in the economic sphere, or we implement harsh regulatory restrictions to strangle profit enough that they attempt an antidemocratic coup against powerful organized labor. Have as many contingencies as viable all running at once, and use victories in one track to protect and advance others.

>Offshoring already runs laps around immigration

But if we killed offshoring, porky would immediately ramp up immigration. Cut off both, however, and porky has nowhere to run.

>You and your idealist fantasies.

>a hilarious exaggeration of the effect that the state has on the economy.

If not for your consistent harping on organization, such fatalistic talk would peg you as a leftcom armchair, content to wait for the dialectic to drop socialism in your lap.


 No.140523

>if you hate islam, you hate muslims

>if you oppose immigration, you're racist

>if you don't vote democrats et al., you're a republican or such

>if you aren't a feminist, you're a sexist

Never change, libs


 No.140529

>>140523

False equivalence. Racism actually is a gigantic part of the immigration debate, which is patently obvious if you look at any of the rhetoric.


 No.140530


 No.140535

>>140514

>And do what, sell to the "emerging Asian middle class"?

Do not think that just because there is a demand for a particular use-value that production must rise to meet it. The bourgeoisie invests entirely to take advantage of opportunities for return.

>More of a middle ground, wherein subsidies aren't dumped into growing cash crops in the middle of nowhere, while population is squeezed as tightly as possible into cities, and nearby suburban/rural greens are left entirely fallow or used to grow lawns.

Never mind how spectacularly inefficient peasant farming is or that most cannot afford to pay peasant prices for food.

>Exports and imports alike as a share of US GDP were already plummeting since 1920, and only briefly spiked on entering the war.

>Exports and imports

>GDP

>as a share

Ah, the magic of statistics! With the right framing they always tell you what you want to hear.

>Like legalizing strikes, unions, closed shops, and free expression?

Precisely like those, yes.

>That

…was a joke about how British socialists went about it.

>or we dismantle the old state a piece at a time

Right, the Republican plan for small gubbermint. At least you will have powerful friends in that endeavor.

>hand its government responsibilities to new syndicalist entities in the economic sphere

Of course, you would need to have those in place before your anti-Big Government plan goes into effect. Otherwise, all you would be doing is to deny individuals vital services.

>or we implement harsh regulatory restrictions to strangle profit enough that they attempt an antidemocratic coup against powerful organized labor

Counting on the bourgeois state to restrict capital and to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism on the population is the fundamental fantasy of the "anti-capitalist" turd position. The state does not and cannot work for workers until they seize it. The state serves only the ruling class.

>But if we killed offshoring, porky would immediately ramp up immigration. Cut off both, however, and porky has nowhere to run.

You can't kill offshoring without first breaking the M-C-M cycle. There is no going back to the old economic spheres of early capitalism where companies were at least ostensibly slaved to the state. Even Adam Smith said as much back in his day. The twentieth century was all about those old self-contained empires being devoured by global capitalism. Backward is not the way forward, as Lenin accidentally proved.

>If not for your consistent harping on organization, such fatalistic talk would peg you as a leftcom armchair, content to wait for the dialectic to drop socialism in your lap.

Understanding both capitalism and the limitations of the revolutionary class are essential. Self-delusion does us no good.


 No.140546

dude, wat? these guys refuse to respect my pronouns


 No.140558

>>140189

>muh freeze peach is violated when a website declines to host my bullshit

boomer tier arguments and understanding, go back to /pol/.

whatever issue you got with scary brown people won't end until capitalism does. focus on that first over defending bootlicking LARPing retards on the border doing the state's work for free.


 No.140559

File: a05b72797e4fa75⋯.png (272.95 KB, 434x428, 217:214, edgelord.png)

>>140529

>racism is a huge portion of the immigration debate

Why is it so racist that I like my country the way it is? I don't blame muslims for leaving their countries that were bombed by US imperialists, but I don't like them trying to install sharia law here. I like seeing breasts and I don't want them censored from the public.

>>140558

>when a website declines to host my bullshit

Google owns 90% of the search market, works with the NSA and was funded by the US military. Think about who you're defending here. Is pic related really so dangerous that you want to give porky all the power over information?


 No.140563

>>140559

>I don't blame muslims for leaving their countries that were bombed by US imperialists, but I don't like them trying to install sharia law here. I like seeing breasts and I don't want them censored from the public.

So shit that is not happening anyway.


 No.140568

>>140558

Based 'cheap maids and landscapers for the capitalists to own the racists' anon


 No.140570

>>140563

bikinis were banned in london


 No.140571

>>140563

>>140570

like they assault women for not covering up correctly because they come from the middle east and you say it's just "not happening"? Is this /liberallpol/ where we run cover for muslims yet attack christianity at every turn?


 No.140573

>>140509

>They are never anything but temporary concessions designed to weather the real threat from revolutionaries.

Bwahahahaha, what "real threat"? r/chapotraphouse potheads making "ironic" jokes about putting pigs against the wall on the revolution?


 No.140576

>>140573

strikes mostly


 No.140577

File: c1282faf19b346c⋯.png (213.79 KB, 400x399, 400:399, frodo.png)

>>140576

>from the person that writes off reforms as temporary concessions to ward off "real threats"

The fuck do you think strikes are supposed to achieve, anon?


 No.140587

>>140573

>Bwahahahaha, what "real threat"?

Scroll up. We are talking about the so-called Gilded Age. The threats in question were the bolsheviks, the IWW, and the Second International.


 No.140588

>>140587

>The threats in question were the bolsheviks, the IWW, and the Second International.

None of which exist as a serious threat to capital in any capacity nowadays


 No.140590

>>140588

And, surprise! Reformists are not getting any of the concessions that they like to take credit for anymore.


 No.140609

File: 0da2875ce827df5⋯.jpg (30.26 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, socdems.jpg)

>>140206

>I wonder, could that possibly be because "both" "sides" of the "debate" on mass economic immigration are monopolized by neolibs their and shills attempting to distract from solutions (decreased quotas for legal visas, and anti-employer/consumer penalties for abusing illegal labor) that actually work?

With a name like "United Constitutional Patriots" I'm fairly certain it's because of nationalism.

>Or we could do both, like last time when we successfully instituted protectionism, terminating the Gilded Age as part of a formulated political program by organized labor. Reformism and direct action are not mutually exclusive.

>Interesting that it did the exact opposite last time, creating the greatest period of prosperity in history, until divisions within the left caused organized labor to collapse in the 1960s.

wakemeupinside.jpg

If you think bourgeois political organizations and reformist labor unions embracing nationalism is actually good and that the post WW2 era is something to aspire to then perhaps calling you a socdem might be too generous.

>No, he did endorse it

Nope, he analyzed it but he didn't say anything like "lol just immigrate to industrial centers to destablize shit lmao".

>Socialism has no necessary relationship either way with government. Whereas, the overall state of the labor market (including low barriers to transnational regulatory and human rights arbitrage) has an ironclad, mechanical relationship with the effectiveness of organized labor action.

This is an awfully long way to say nothing. Being poor enough to work for less doesn't make a scab, if you've expanded scab that far beyond its proper use as "strikebreaker" then you've reduced the term to absolute meaninglessness because virtually every labor movement and revolt in history would have been led by scabs. There's also no evidence that immigrants have been used to break actual strikes, which makes the insistence on calling them scabs all the more confusing.

>And precisely that caused London to distance himself from it soon afterward.

The fact remains that London was never a member of the IWW and was a closer relative to social democracy than syndicalism. You may as well look towards Kautsky as to what praxis should be adopted by anarchists, which it seems is what you have also done.

>did the IWW actually even have any kind of official position on this?

With a name like International Workers of the World and a rejection of bourgeois politics, the IWW's position should be relatively clear.

>>140570

"Lewd" advertisements have been banned in London, and it seems the reasoning was because of "body positive" rather than religious reasons. Da mooslims aren't coming for the tiddies and if ads for supplements got you off then you need better taste or some self-control.


 No.140632

>>140535

>Do not think that just because there is a demand for a particular use-value that production must rise to meet it.

If one porky doesn't take advantage of a market, they will be bowled over by other porkies willing to do so. As historical examples of market regulations from the piddling to the severe repeatedly illustrate, "capital flight" is a myth, because there is no honor among thieves.

>peasant farming

Hardly what I'm suggesting. Just something more local, with lower externalities, better conditions, and more mechanization.

>most cannot afford to pay

Maybe if they had better compensation, such as direct and indirect income from decently paid domestic agricultural fieldwork and processing jobs, that would be within peoples' reach?

>GDP

>as a share

The same trends were true of absolute, as well as relative, numbers. WWII had basically no effect on the US economy until well after declaration of war, due to the unimportance of trade, and the historically unprecedented improvement in material conditions for the American working class were the result of hard won reforms enacted in the '30s.

>Of course, you would need to have those in place before your anti-Big Government plan goes into effect.

The two acts are one and the same. As people shift away from government services to direct structures of mutual aid, government withers away. Help from legal reforms consist of removing barriers, placing incentives, and providing protections to such activities.

>"anti-capitalist" turd position

>The state serves only the ruling class.

Are you attempting to compare parliamentary reformism to the retarded class "collaborationism" of the fascists? This isn't working with capital to reach compromises, this is fighting the influence of capital in every avenue within our reach, and expressing the power of labor through every conduit of consequence. To ignore the state is folly, to disdain its use suicide.

>You can't kill offshoring

Funny, because that's exactly what our predecessors did a century ago.

>There is no going back to the old economic spheres of early capitalism where companies were at least ostensibly slaved to the state

The economic order of the present day is a throwback, to the pre-1900s Age of Colonialism in which robber barons ran unregulated monopolies, and chartered companies annexed whole countries to private ownership, freely trading extracted commodities and human bodies across nonexistent borders. The neolib/neocon coup in the 1970s wasn't a step forward to socialism, but a step backward to feudalism.

>>140558

>tolerating, normalizing, endorsing, protecting, participating in, and constructing a colossal edifice

>for the surveillance, identification, censorship, and extralegal harassment of the masses

>on the basis of constantly shifting non-policy by unaccountable and secretive conspiratorial psychopaths

>employed by giant greedy fake tech corporations whose primary business is the stealing and selling of personal information with a profit motive to destroy any platform or network that doesn't yield all privacy to their datamining

>with open ties to repressive government bodies that have repeatedly pushed to roll back human rights

>a good idea

>>140577

This. The whole purpose of leftism is the improvement of material conditions.

>>140609

>With a name like "United Constitutional Patriots" I'm fairly certain it's because of nationalism.

Gee, really? What if there were people on the left as an establishment allowed to openly address it in other terms, so the "conversation" on immigration didn't consist entirely of racist retards, and open borders shitlibs like you. Would things be different?

>If you think […] the post WW2 era is something to aspire to then perhaps calling you a socdem might be too generous.

It's certainly something to aspire to now, especially for burgerstanis.

>he didn't say anything like "lol just immigrate to industrial centers to destablize shit lmao".

He almost literally did:

<But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

>Being poor enough to work for less doesn't make a scab

But actually doing so, does.


 No.140658

>>140559

>Why is it so racist that I like my country the way it is?

Countries are artificial inventions of the modern world and “the way it is” can only be enforced through violent conformity. Anyone who cares about preserving their country or their culture is a pol boomer in denial


 No.140667

File: 96777986435e4ec⋯.jpg (21.26 KB, 418x338, 209:169, FatTeamfatchicksinpartyhat….jpg)

>>140609

>"Lewd" advertisements have been banned in London, and it seems the reasoning was because of "body positive" rather than religious reasons.

I love it. Land whales want to ban images of pretty naked chicks, because they remind them that they themselves look like beanbags made of ham.

>>140632

>If one porky doesn't take advantage of a market, they will be bowled over by other porkies willing to do so.

That would seem to make sense, wouldn't it? Indeed, advocates of capitalism claim that is exactly how it happens, but the reality of it is quite different. The fact of the matter is that investors leave numerous potential markets untapped simply because the potential return on investment–the rate of profit–is not high enough to justify investment. Consider the market for cures and vaccines for example.

>As historical examples of market regulations from the piddling to the severe repeatedly illustrate, "capital flight" is a myth, because there is no honor among thieves.

Tell that to the Rust Belt.

>The economic order of the present day is a throwback, to the pre-1900s Age of Colonialism

What spectacular bullshit! Colonialism is gone, devoured by global free trade capitalism. The United States is not its own economy fed by a periphery in places like Shanghai, the Philippines, the Yukon, and the Old West. The United States is just what its name suggests, and the places over which it claims authority are just nodes within a greater economy.

>Hardly what I'm suggesting. Just something more local, with lower externalities, better conditions, and more mechanization.

Agribusiness with a human face?

>Maybe if they had better compensation

And how do they get that then? Do we petition the state to tell its masters to give up their treasure? Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. Inb4 "it worked before." Only in whatever fantasy you happen to be drawing your knowledge of American history from. Because it sure as hell seems to have affected those if your infographic is to be believed.

>The same trends were true of absolute, as well as relative, numbers.

Absolute numbers like the prices of commodities, real wages, and industrial production?

>due to the unimportance of trade

You say before claiming that the current economy is a reincarnation of Gilded Age.

>the historically unprecedented improvement in material conditions for the American working class were the result of hard won reforms enacted in the '30s.

Enacted by Roosevelt in response to the systemic collapse that was the Great Depression in a desperate attempt to save capitalism from its own contradictions. Seriously, how do you Rosa Killers take credit for something that liberal capitalists did in response to a crisis?

>The two acts are one and the same. As people shift away from government services to direct structures of mutual aid, government withers away

The Black Panthers (revolutionaries, by the way) tried that. All that happened was that the state began providing the same services.


 No.140668

File: 8956ebade8533b8⋯.jpg (41.66 KB, 400x300, 4:3, FuckingSocDems.jpg)

>>140667

>Are you attempting to compare parliamentary reformism to the retarded class "collaborationism" of the fascists?

It is not a stretch to make the connection. That is, after all, how fascists rose to take control of the state.

>This isn't working with capital to reach compromises

How the hell is it anything else?

>To ignore the state is folly, to disdain its use suicide.

To ignore the state is the event horizon of revolution.

>Funny, because that's exactly what our predecessors did a century ago.

And fairies wear boots.

>The economic order of the present day is a throwback, to the pre-1900s Age of Colonialism

Maybe is you squint slightly and completely ignore all structural analysis.

>in which robber barons ran unregulated monopolies, and chartered companies annexed whole countries to private ownership, freely trading extracted commodities and human bodies across nonexistent borders.

That's all just capitalism in general.

>The neolib/neocon coup in the 1970s wasn't a step forward to socialism, but a step backward to feudalism.

Reality does not move backwards, and modes of production sure as hell do not revert to systems that were already annihilated.

>It's certainly something to aspire to now, especially for burgerstanis.

Hell no, it's not! That was when North America was the last intact industrialized region in the world, because everywhere else was still a smoking crater. That little white-picket utopia was entirely the product of the old national empires being obliterated.

>He almost literally did:

That is absolutely not what that is saying.

>But actually doing so, does.

No, it doesn't, no matter how much you may want to call immigrents "scabs."


 No.140675

>>140667

>Consider the market for cures and vaccines for example.

>Tell that to the Rust Belt.

Those are markets of different products to the same consumers. In the case of international protectionism, on the other hand, porky would have to completely relinquish access to 1st-world consumer markets worth tens of trillions of dollars. For a much smaller scale example of the difference from what you said, look at electric and other alternative fuel cars following California's AFV/LEV/ZEV mandate from 1990. In spite of foot dragging and autistic screeching in the courts for years about how technically impossible and commercially unprofitable compliance would be, when enforcement began in 1997 all the automakers rolled out compliant vehicles, simply to retain access to 2% of just the California auto market. Even though they were later able to kill California's mandate in 2003, the damage had been done and too much money had been sunken into electric vehicles for them to completely vanish from the market, including their sale in other regions to subsidize compliance with Californian law, and the entry of Tesla cemented the need to at least keep a toe in the water.

>Colonialism is gone, devoured by global free trade capitalism.

>The United States is not its own economy fed by a periphery

Same shit, different day. The old colonial empires, especially by the late 1800s, were also largely ruled by freewheeling unregulated porkies rather than loyal national subjects. There was an interregnum in which such practices abated, we need to pick up where we left off.

>Inb4 "it worked before."

>infographic

That's not an "infographic", it's a chart. Are you attempting to pretend real income of the common worker didn't increase to an unprecedented peak before neoliberalism happened? You can't just deny historical reality.

>Absolute numbers like the prices of commodities, real wages, and industrial production?

Bingo

>You say before claiming that the current economy is a reincarnation of Gilded Age.

The era in which I said that trade had become unimportant was when the Gilded Age was ending, in the 1930s (although regulatory changes and labor activism had already been cutting both trade and migration, as well as imposing other burdens on capital such as antitrust and legal unions, for a couple decades before).

>Seriously, how do you Rosa Killers take credit for something that liberal capitalists did in response to a crisis?

Because it was the activism of labor, both parliamentary and direct, that forced such concessions to be made. Unlike, for instance, the toothless and undisciplined labor response to the later recessions in the early 1970s and late 2000s.

>All that happened was that the state began providing the same services.

That, and the Panthers (as well as other truly radical elements of the 1960s "New Left") were broken up by suppression and infiltration.

>>140668

>To ignore the state is the event horizon of revolution.

Yes, by whoever the next most powerful force is. Right now, that's porky. The state is presently a crucial bulwark against unregulated capital.

>That was when North America was the last intact industrialized region in the world, because everywhere else was still a smoking crater.

False, the same thing happened in Europe itself, where unprecedented improvements to material conditions rapidly mirrored the prosperity of the USA by the mid-'50s. In particular, the Nordic countries went from the famine-wracked, poverty-stricken icy wastelands on par with Africa they had been prewar, to the highest living standards in the world.


 No.140685

File: cf15f26c19b885b⋯.jpg (143.89 KB, 1440x810, 16:9, huh.jpg)

>>140658

welp I guess neoliberal capitalism must continue then. There's no possible criticism to be made. If you criticize mass immigration and banking from racial nationalism, you're a fascist. If you criticize mass immigration and banking from oldschool leftism, you're a tankie strasser fan.

Truly, neoliberalism is untouchable and you will defend it at all costs.


 No.140687

>>140685

“Old school leftism” means abolishing the nation-state last I checked. And you’re being purposefully retarded by equating illegal immigration under capitalism with freedom of movement under communism, especially since even the most pro-immigrant neoliberal capitalists still support militant border security as a means to control the population


 No.140692

>>140687

>abolishing the nation-state

I'll take leninism for 500 alex


 No.140702

>>140687

>especially since even the most pro-immigrant neoliberal capitalists still support militant border security as a means to control the population

What planet are you living on? Or is this one of those "needing a passport and getting patted down at an airport is literally one step away from Auschwitz" hysteric leftisms


 No.140704

File: 3d7fbe2ef923ed2⋯.jpg (662.45 KB, 3173x1988, 3173:1988, RealityVsPol.jpg)

>>140675

>In the case of international protectionism, on the other hand, porky would have to completely relinquish access to 1st-world consumer markets worth tens of trillions of dollars

Who exactly is going to deny the bosses access? The state? Their state?

>and the entry of Tesla cemented the need to at least keep a toe in the water.

And now it is being kept alive as an asset for speculators, and the industry has been doing little more than wiggling that toe ever since. Meanwhile Doc Brown from 1955 is still wondering where all the flying cars are.

>Same shit, different day

Hell-fucking-no it isn't. Drawing resources from an imperial periphery to feed a manufacturing base at the center of empire is not at all the same thing as Boeing getting aluminum from Canada, carbon fibre from Japan, wiring from Italy, etc. from other countries which then all get turned into a fusilage in Indonesia, a tail in Germany, and wings in South Carolina before all of it gets shipped to Everett, Washington to be assembled into an aircraft which is then sold to an airline in Qatar. That is what the new global capitalism looks like.

>Are you attempting to pretend real income of the common worker didn't increase to an unprecedented peak before neoliberalism happened?

In the United States. And neoliberalism happened as a response to the stagnation caused by the Energy Crisis.

>You can't just deny historical reality.

As opposed to pretending that every good thing that ever happened to the American worker was due to a tiny minority of activists in government who asked Big Daddy State in very strong words to gibs dem dat?

>Yes, by whoever the next most powerful force is. Right now, that's porky.

The bourgeoisie is the most powerful force, not the next most powerful force. The state follows their lead, not the other way around.

>The state is presently a crucial bulwark against unregulated capital.

Class collaborationist fantasy.

>False, the same thing happened in Europe itself, where unprecedented improvements to material conditions rapidly mirrored the prosperity of the USA by the mid-'50s.

Ah, the Marshall Plan in which the Americans created their own economic sphere to oppose the Soviets and Red China (at least for a while). It would be poor framing to claim that Western Europe was distinct from the American economy while that was going on. Or afterward, really.

>>140702

Earth, I would imagine. You should try it. It's much nicer than Turner Diaries World.


 No.140708

File: bc34b956a96cb43⋯.png (24.27 KB, 861x239, 861:239, 5d69b297-e01e-48f7-8ef6-92….png)

>>140704

Ah yes, pic related must be a five-dimensional chess move by the FBI to suppress further immigration


 No.140709

>>140692

>I'll take leninism for 500 alex

that's nice but i'd rather take communism instead

>>140708

he was arrested because he was an idiot who broke the law. the state only ever relies on far-right vigilante groups like border militias when they absolutely need to. and either way a single militia leader being arrested doesn't contradict the fact that the American government has a gigantic deportation machine that is being unleashed on immigrant populations right now


 No.140710

>>140708

If an idiot publically undermines the state's monopoly on legitimate violence, then said idiot is going to be arrested. Did you honestly think that they would approve of vigilantes undermining the police?


 No.140717

>>140709

>American government has a gigantic deportation machine that is being unleashed on immigrant populations right now

What's the total illegal population of the US estimated to be, again?


 No.140718

File: 463f324b3ca64c6⋯.png (829.58 KB, 1910x1000, 191:100, aybbr.png)

>>140667

>Land whales want to ban images of pretty naked chicks

Wasn't even nude, it was the pic related. Bitch has some fake tiddies and chicken legs to boot.

>>140632

>What if there were people on the left as an establishment allowed to openly address it in other terms

You mean like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn? Then you'd have socdems dedicated to the management of capital instead of social revolution, which is what the other anon and I have been slagging you as.

>open borders shitlibs like you

Being called a "shitlib" from someone who advocates liberal policy and holds liberal ideology is fucking hilarious, especially considering I've been repeating century old Anarchist Communist views. I guess we can add "liberal" to the list of words you either don't understand or misuse.

>Would things be different?

No.

>It's certainly something to aspire to now, especially for burgerstanis.

Only if you completely ignore the conditions that created such a "prosperous era" for white burgers, such as the "democracy building" burgerland carried out in the wake of the fall of previous empires, even in which case it's still a capitalist hell where you have to sell your labor or die. I'll take abolishing capitalism over capitalism with a human face.

>He almost literally did:

He doesn't mention immigration at all, did you get your nativist polices mixed up? If you think free trade = more immigration you should look into Operation Gatekeeper that came around the same time as NAFTA.

>But actually doing so, does.

Only if you we were to strip "scab" of any real meaning. I guess everyone making less than the most well compensated proletarian is now a scab in crypto-socdem land.


 No.140728

>>140717

15 to 30 million: https://thehill.com/latino/407848-yale-mit-study-22-million-not-11-million-undocumented-immigrants-in-us

>>140709

>The US relies on right-wing militias

like how they murdered filipino christians at Waco and murdered people at Ruby Ridge? Like how cointelpro infiltrates literally every political movement, including communist ones in the 1960's?

>they broke the law!

First, no they didn't. It is not illegal to own a firearm and make a citizens arrest. Secondly, lick that boot harder lmfao. ICE actually agreed with the vigilante border enforcers and it was the FBI who arrested them. Once again, you deepthroat authoritarianism and deepthroat porky. Imagine shilling this hard for neoliberalism just to spite all the other variants of leftism. Demanding we abolish the nation-state then immediately bootlick the USgov, christ dude.


 No.140731

>>140728

>First, no they didn't. It is not illegal to own a firearm

it is if you're a convicted felon, which the militia leader dude was. the point is that the state will arrest/prosecute far-right militia groups when they have to but don't have a problem with right-wing vigilantes unleashing violence against the left. we've already seen the police coordinate with groups like the proud boys to target leftists because surprise, both groups have a vested interest in protecting capitalism and the us govt.

>lick that boot harder lmfao.

nigger you're the one defending ICE not me.

>Imagine shilling this hard for neoliberalism just to spite all the other variants of leftism.

Imagine shilling this hard for deportations. literally no one here is defending neoliberalism, communists were advocating for freedom of movement decades before neoliberalism was ever a thing, and again there are zero capitalists today who believe in open borders


 No.140738

>>140687

>“Old school leftism” means abolishing the nation-state last I checked.

And what conditions are likeliest to result in that?

>>140704

>Who exactly is going to deny the bosses access? The state?

Yup, just like last time, resulting in high labor demand, tight labor supply, and high leverage for organization.

>And now it is being kept alive as an asset for speculators, and the industry has been doing little more than wiggling that toe ever since

Tesla's sales and marketshare have both grown steadily. Electric marketshare of new vehicle sales is now 2-6% in most countries (over 10% in California, half in Norway), whereas it was basically 0% worldwide for a century before that one piece of California legislation was briefly put in place.

>That is what the new global capitalism looks like.

For a handful of countries. Sure, a few like China and Malaysia have been industrialized, but most countries from Congo to Saudi Arabia remain simple undiversified extractive economies. Global deregulation, same as then, is the status quo today.

>In the United States.

And the rest of the 1st-world

>And neoliberalism happened as a response to the stagnation caused by the Energy Crisis.

That was merely the cover. Destruction of both unions (especially in the private sector) and divorce of political leftism from unions, was what allowed the window of opportunity for neoliberalism to be installed.

>every good thing that ever happened to the American worker was due to a tiny minority of activists in government

Backed up by strong on-the-ground labor action, as part of an integrated and disciplined class war, yes.

>The state follows their lead, not the other way around.

Then why is porky constantly attempting to dismantle it?

>Ah, the Marshall Plan in which the Americans created their own economic sphere to oppose the Soviets and Red China

Much like the USSR's Molotov Plan, which (within the USSR's less bountiful resources) similarly aided great postwar prosperity. But regardless, Marshall aid only kept Europe from becoming a trashfire immediately postwar, it was sweeping socdem legal reforms and powerful organized labor that led to tremendous gains in living conditions, as well as better sustained union discipline that prevented the political coup of neoliberalism from being quite as severe and immediate as in the USA.

>>140718

>You mean like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn?

Point taken in general, but regarding those two men as individuals, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as mere sewer socialists. Even moreso for some standing behind them, such as John McDonnell.

>instead of social revolution

>I'll take abolishing capitalism over capitalism with a human face.

The two are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, each builds more favorable conditions for the other, allowing us to go from strength to strength in the struggle for socialism, which may or may not ultimately happen everywhere as a sudden violent transition.

>advocates liberal policy

Like open borders, or at least blackpills about their "inevitability"?

>He doesn't mention immigration at all, did you get your nativist polices mixed up?

He was talking about protectionism versus deregulation, an umbrella mass economic migration obviously falls under.

>If you think free trade = more immigration you should look into Operation Gatekeeper that came around the same time as NAFTA.

As I point out below, it certainly did = more immigration.

>I guess everyone making less than the most well compensated proletarian is now a scab in crypto-socdem land.

If the position you accept terrible terms for is in direct competition with better ones, driving down overall conditions for that job? Yes, that's being a class traitor.

>>140731

>there are zero capitalists today who believe in open borders

AEI, CATO, IMF, World Bank, etc., etc., etc.


 No.140739

>>140708

>>140728

I think other poster's point wasn't that immigration enforcement is competently and sincerely done to minimize the number of illegals, but that immigration enforcement as presently done, serves porky's interests by perpetuating the carefully controlled existence of an under-underclass of exceptionally oppressed illegal aliens. They scab on legal immigrants the same way legals do to natives, or to the unemployed population's intentional perpetuation by porky to function as a "reserve army of labor" that keeps all workers sufficiently desperate.

>15 to 30 million

Regardless of whether or not such estimations are absolutely true, all of those "higher numbers" studies I've read still reproduce the same relative trends as more mainstream "~10 million" studies. Namely, that total illegal alien population skyrocketed following NAFTA's devastation of both Mexico and USA's economies, then plateaued around the year 2000 at a number that basically hasn't changed since. Combined with wildly fluctuating entry and deportation numbers every year, and the fact that most illegals enter the country on legal visas before "vanishing from the system", this suggests an intentional policy of retaining a specific target population of illegals.


 No.140756

>>140731

>there are zero capitalists today who believe in open borders

Bro you are so wrong


 No.140759

>>140731

>there are no capitalists that support open borders

Either lying or typical liberal


 No.140762

>>140731

open borders lowers wages


 No.140763

they can basically enslave people who run away from fucked countries


 No.140764

they eat that shit up


 No.140772

>>140762

Bosses lower wages.


 No.140773

>>140738

>Yup, just like last time, resulting in high labor demand, tight labor supply, and high leverage for organization.

Alright, full-stop. Where are you getting this fantastical bullshit from? That never happened.


 No.141399

File: ff048b8592dcded⋯.png (417.23 KB, 785x894, 785:894, tankies get the drone.PNG)

File: 37be9a143d0de26⋯.png (577.93 KB, 947x966, 947:966, emilyg.PNG)

Remember everyone:

>immigration good, nationalism bad

>drone strikes on 3rd world countries good, stalinism bad

>transsexual US military industrial complex good, autonomy bad

These are the """""leftists""""" who advocate for free movement and taking out Assad


 No.141401

>>141399

Nationalism is bad though.


 No.141407

>>141401

Stalinism is bad too


 No.141436

File: f1c69055db41358⋯.png (171.04 KB, 844x664, 211:166, D5UpFh9XoAATsxW.png)

>>141399

The tranny says "America is the bad guys" in your first image you posted and I'd bet my car the tankoid sperging at them supports immigrants against burger imperialism. I'd say you're eaching by equating "free movement" with support for imperialism but that'd be a hell of an understatement.

>>141407

This but unironically.


 No.141448

File: 47da77e43408506⋯.jpg (44.88 KB, 473x355, 473:355, Yalta.jpg)

>>141436

>When we met with Roosevelt to discuss the questions of war, we did not call each other names.

They reserved the name-calling for Churchill.


 No.142157

>We must support freedom of movement, it's just a coincidence that big capital also wants mass immigration

What?

The ancom is evolving!

>We must support censorship of the fascists, it's just a coincidence that big capital gets to choose who's censored

Fuck hit b hit b hitbHITB FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HIT BEEEEEE-

>armed citizens having the right to bear arms is awful! Just a coincidence only private mercenaries and the police will have guns!

Congratulations!

Your [ancom] evolved into a neoliberal!


 No.142166

>>142157

>big capital

Kek, yeah, the people who make arms are trying to keep you from having guns, the media companies who sell your information are driving you off the internet, and the military industrial complex that manipulates states into maintaining standing armies and border security are trying to eliminate all borders. Dumbass.


 No.142173

>>142166

Other poster is a little lost /pol/yp, but

>implying personal sales are where the weapons industry makes its dosh

>implying online firms want people to spread opinions and converse instead of surrendering bland personal information in bubbles and passively consuming

>implying neolib border control is about preventing migration rather than insuring immigrants are as numerous and oppressed as possible


 No.142175

>>142173

>implying closing a lucrative market is something that would get approved by any board of directors

>implying media providers have any interest in limiting any of the time that anyone spends feeding their databases personal information

>implying borders facilitate human migration

Come on, Rose, try to think about these things a bit harder than your average /pol/tard.


 No.142176

>>142173

Why is it that all these positions just so happen to give neoliberal capitalism everything it wants? Censored population, unarmed population, mass immigration, and these seem to be the most important issues for some reason. Why are supposedly anti-authoritarian leftists defending corporate abuse of workers just because some workers are rightists?

idk maybe I'm just weird for having rightwing friends and I don't want to see Tech monopolies get to censor them because we don't see eye to eye on everything.


 No.142177

>>142175

>implying that would result in lower sales than a full police state

>implying censorship of opinions and human interaction reduces time and output volume spent on banal consumerism

>implying open borders coupled with caste systems isn't precisely what drives population transfer and warmongering

>>142176

Because the mostly economics-focused left had its brain eaten by culture-focused children in the 1960s, and coupled with literal CIA indoctrination campaigns, it never pivoted back to actual leftism after all of those cultural issues were resolved by the 1970s, when the "New Left" dissolved into fairy dust. All that remains, like the above poster I just replied to, are incapable of separating their PC weenie-isms from pragmatic leftism that won real victories in days past.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / baaa / choroy / film / loomis / occult / sl / veganism ]