LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Communal concils]

Heavy shit hey how about we answer this

I think Labour's loss of its traditional heartland should be a sign that socialists and social democrats shouldn't throw their lot in with neoliberals.

I believe that the reason labor lost was because they didn't support Brexit . I will also say that Leftist can achieve better victories if we support limited immigration instead of mass immigration and we should talk more about being anti-globalist. The Left also needs to abandon identity politics and needs to see demographics as pragmatic tools. The danish social democrats already did such things, and they save their country from the Far-Right.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think Labour's loss of its traditional heartland should be a sign that socialists and social democrats shouldn't throw their lot in with neoliberals.

I believe that the reason labor lost was because they didn't support Brexit . I will also say that Leftist can achieve better victories if we support limited immigration instead of mass immigration and we should talk more about being anti-globalist. The Left also needs to abandon identity politics and needs to see demographics as pragmatic tools. The danish social democrats already did such things, and they save their country from the Far-Right.

I don't necessarily think immigration is the problem, but leftists should do more to address the concerns of those among the workers who are anti-immigrant, as well as a more proactive foreign aid policy to develop third world countries so that there isn't such a massive amount of immigration, which would address those concerns and provide tangible benefits down the line. I also think it couldn't hurt to acknowledge that emigration is actually bad for poor people in the third world too.

[Communal concils]

I believe that the reason labor lost was because they didn't support Brexit . I will also say that Leftist can achieve better victories if we support limited immigration instead of mass immigration and we should talk more about being anti-globalist. The Left also needs to abandon identity politics and needs to see demographics as pragmatic tools. The danish social democrats already did such things, and they save their country from the Far-Right.

I don't necessarily think immigration is the problem, but leftists should do more to address the concerns of those among the workers who are anti-immigrant, as well as a more proactive foreign aid policy to develop third world countries so that there isn't such a massive amount of immigration, which would address those concerns and provide tangible benefits down the line. I also think it couldn't hurt to acknowledge that emigration is actually bad for poor people in the third world too.

Yes, I agree. I don't get why certain leftist in the west( like the MLs) support such things. in regulated borders can cause many problems. For example, the Galapagos Islands have been threatened because people bring invasive species unintentionally( soil on shoes being one way for transportation of threatening organisms). Another example is human trafficking that happens in the southern Us border.

In the end, unregulated Borders is a Neo-Liberal policy embraced by people like Ronald Reagan. Brain drains, smuggling, and various other problems are also of concern. When we look at non-western leftist parties, they seem like light years ahead of movements that were devastated by the New Left of the 1960's -1980's. It is even more sad for the MLs, because we have people like Angela Davis. She doesn't believe in restrictions on the American border, but supported East German's Berlin wall. She hate prisons, but supports the arrest of dissidence in the eastern bloc. she hates policy brutality, but supports the crushing of the Prague uprising. Leftism is filled with contradictions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't necessarily think immigration is the problem, but leftists should do more to address the concerns of those among the workers who are anti-immigrant, as well as a more proactive foreign aid policy to develop third world countries so that there isn't such a massive amount of immigration, which would address those concerns and provide tangible benefits down the line. I also think it couldn't hurt to acknowledge that emigration is actually bad for poor people in the third world too.

Yes, I agree. I don't get why certain leftist in the west( like the MLs) support such things. in regulated borders can cause many problems. For example, the Galapagos Islands have been threatened because people bring invasive species unintentionally( soil on shoes being one way for transportation of threatening organisms). Another example is human trafficking that happens in the southern Us border.

In the end, unregulated Borders is a Neo-Liberal policy embraced by people like Ronald Reagan. Brain drains, smuggling, and various other problems are also of concern. When we look at non-western leftist parties, they seem like light years ahead of movements that were devastated by the New Left of the 1960's -1980's. It is even more sad for the MLs, because we have people like Angela Davis. She doesn't believe in restrictions on the American border, but supported East German's Berlin wall. She hate prisons, but supports the arrest of dissidence in the eastern bloc. she hates policy brutality, but supports the crushing of the Prague uprising. Leftism is filled with contradictions.

Yeah, I definitely don't support brutal policies like are currently being employed on the Southern border or that the populists in Europe want to impose, but abolishing borders cannot work while we still live in a world of nation-states and an easier and more worthwhile policy would be to try to incentivize staying in the home country, but millions of immigrants pouring through borders won't help anyone, it will just create a permanent underclass in the host country that is resented. Mass immigration works towards the interests of the capitalist class because it strengthens non-socialist movements that use immigration as a red herring for the social problems of the host country.

[Communal concils]

Yes, I agree. I don't get why certain leftist in the west( like the MLs) support such things. in regulated borders can cause many problems. For example, the Galapagos Islands have been threatened because people bring invasive species unintentionally( soil on shoes being one way for transportation of threatening organisms). Another example is human trafficking that happens in the southern Us border.

In the end, unregulated Borders is a Neo-Liberal policy embraced by people like Ronald Reagan. Brain drains, smuggling, and various other problems are also of concern. When we look at non-western leftist parties, they seem like light years ahead of movements that were devastated by the New Left of the 1960's -1980's. It is even more sad for the MLs, because we have people like Angela Davis. She doesn't believe in restrictions on the American border, but supported East German's Berlin wall. She hate prisons, but supports the arrest of dissidence in the eastern bloc. she hates policy brutality, but supports the crushing of the Prague uprising. Leftism is filled with contradictions.

Yeah, I definitely don't support brutal policies like are currently being employed on the Southern border or that the populists in Europe want to impose, but abolishing borders cannot work while we still live in a world of nation-states and an easier and more worthwhile policy would be to try to incentivize staying in the home country, but millions of immigrants pouring through borders won't help anyone, it will just create a permanent underclass in the host country that is resented. Mass immigration works towards the interests of the capitalist class because it strengthens non-socialist movements that use immigration as a red herring for the social problems of the host country.

indeed. now I think that we should change the conversation a little bit.

What is your opinion of Marxist that reject traditional Marxism( the people that many call revisionist). I'll say that I'm one of those individuals. The collapse of the labour parties electorialism is a reminder of how desperate leftist have become, and the various other problems of the movement( like intersectionality) have reinforced my views. I believe that Marx was wrong about the direction of a socialist revolution. It won't create a global stateless, money less and classless society. Marx was also wrong in seeing the future in a strict deterministic way. There is no successful Marxist revolution in the west and all such revolutions happened through struggles in the undeveloped world and through the occupation of form fascist lands in ww2. East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary being the closest to western communism in practice.

A new tendency of Marxism should be created and all current tendencies in my opinion are anachronisms.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah, I definitely don't support brutal policies like are currently being employed on the Southern border or that the populists in Europe want to impose, but abolishing borders cannot work while we still live in a world of nation-states and an easier and more worthwhile policy would be to try to incentivize staying in the home country, but millions of immigrants pouring through borders won't help anyone, it will just create a permanent underclass in the host country that is resented. Mass immigration works towards the interests of the capitalist class because it strengthens non-socialist movements that use immigration as a red herring for the social problems of the host country.

indeed. now I think that we should change the conversation a little bit.

What is your opinion of Marxist that reject traditional Marxism( the people that many call revisionist). I'll say that I'm one of those individuals. The collapse of the labour parties electorialism is a reminder of how desperate leftist have become, and the various other problems of the movement( like intersectionality) have reinforced my views. I believe that Marx was wrong about the direction of a socialist revolution. It won't create a global stateless, money less and classless society. Marx was also wrong in seeing the future in a strict deterministic way. There is no successful Marxist revolution in the west and all such revolutions happened through struggles in the undeveloped world and through the occupation of form fascist lands in ww2. East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary being the closest to western communism in practice.

A new tendency of Marxism should be created and all current tendencies in my opinion are anachronisms.

I mean, I'm not a Marxist, but as a former Marxist, I think that traditional Marxism is fundamentally flawed in its analysis by its strict adherence to materialism in a 19th century sense of the term, which has since been disproven by a myriad of developments in sociology. What is needed is a synthesis of a workers' movement with modern philosophy.

[Kubra]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system. And of course, no good comes of policy that might seem to reinforce the perception of two hostile proletarian camps. Reducing immigration as a policy put forward by an ostensibly left wing party only reinforces that perception.

[Nakena]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system.

What if alot of the immigrants are lumpenproletariat however?

[Kubra]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system.

What if alot of the immigrants are lumpenproletariat however?

Do they generate a surplus-value? They proles. Lumpen was mostly a snarl world for the chronically un/underemployed.

[Communal concils]

indeed. now I think that we should change the conversation a little bit.

What is your opinion of Marxist that reject traditional Marxism( the people that many call revisionist). I'll say that I'm one of those individuals. The collapse of the labour parties electorialism is a reminder of how desperate leftist have become, and the various other problems of the movement( like intersectionality) have reinforced my views. I believe that Marx was wrong about the direction of a socialist revolution. It won't create a global stateless, money less and classless society. Marx was also wrong in seeing the future in a strict deterministic way. There is no successful Marxist revolution in the west and all such revolutions happened through struggles in the undeveloped world and through the occupation of form fascist lands in ww2. East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary being the closest to western communism in practice.

A new tendency of Marxism should be created and all current tendencies in my opinion are anachronisms.

I mean, I'm not a Marxist, but as a former Marxist, I think that traditional Marxism is fundamentally flawed in its analysis by its strict adherence to materialism in a 19th century sense of the term, which has since been disproven by a myriad of developments in sociology. What is needed is a synthesis of a workers' movement with modern philosophy.

indeed.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system. And of course, no good comes of policy that might seem to reinforce the perception of two hostile proletarian camps. Reducing immigration as a policy put forward by an ostensibly left wing party only reinforces that perception.

It does, however, hurt the country that people are emigrating from, because they lose a great deal of capital to wealthier countries.

[Communal concils]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system. And of course, no good comes of policy that might seem to reinforce the perception of two hostile proletarian camps. Reducing immigration as a policy put forward by an ostensibly left wing party only reinforces that perception.

My argument against mass immigration is not really base on the ideal that it ruins the earnings of the native proletariat under a capitalist system. the sociological institutional structures of society can't completely deal in a process of just inviting everyone in. Such a position is as flawed as anarchism. It ignores the humanitarian and legislative problems that result from the withering away of certain systems. From what I read, it seems like you support the increase of proletariat suffering under simplistic and humanist morality.

[Kubra]

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system. And of course, no good comes of policy that might seem to reinforce the perception of two hostile proletarian camps. Reducing immigration as a policy put forward by an ostensibly left wing party only reinforces that perception.

It does, however, hurt the country that people are emigrating from, because they lose a great deal of capital to wealthier countries.

Sure, it's kind of the point that it do so. But you see where the problem comes in: reduce immigration, jerbs move away, less money circulates domestically, and now it's on the head of the party that engineered the policy. That ain't good press, if you're gonna lose anyways may as well choose the loss that makes you look better in the end.

The thing with immigration is it's a problem of perception rather than more simplistic economic perspectives. That is to say, it's untrue that immigrants drive down wages, because those wages would be driven down anyways. It's simply somewhat cheaper to bring variable capital to existing fixed capital and somewhat better for wages to recirculate internally. While the outlay of variable (eg. wages) exceeds fixed, all reducing immigration accomplishes is incentivising fixed capital investment at the cheaper variable capitals points of origin. You know, the ol' outsourcing conundrum. Immigration, for better or worse, is a buffer against it. This is why it's a problem of perception: immigrants get the blame because you can see em. You can hear em in grocery stores and scowl at em for stealin ur jerbs. It's much harder to do that with the faraway industrial cities of Shenzhen.

As a good communist, the answer is of course abolish the wage system. And of course, no good comes of policy that might seem to reinforce the perception of two hostile proletarian camps. Reducing immigration as a policy put forward by an ostensibly left wing party only reinforces that perception.

My argument against mass immigration is not really base on the ideal that it ruins the earnings of the native proletariat under a capitalist system. the sociological institutional structures of society can't completely deal in a process of just inviting everyone in. Such a position is as flawed as anarchism. It ignores the humanitarian and legislative problems that result from the withering away of certain systems. From what I read, it seems like you support the increase of proletariat suffering under simplistic and humanist morality.

Sure, maybe, but neither can they deal with mass unemployment.
As I've said, that "increase in suffering" is going to happen anyways, so long as labour costs remain uneven at a global level. If you can't stop it, then the real trick is coming off looking good. Let others tie their political nooses, ya know?

[Nakena]

What if alot of the immigrants are lumpenproletariat however?

Do they generate a surplus-value? They proles. Lumpen was mostly a snarl world for the chronically un/underemployed.

No i meant this definition:

They belonged for the most part to the lumpenproletariat, which forms a mass clearly distinguished from the industrial proletariat in all large cities, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the refuse of society, people without a fixed line of work.

Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenpro ... _on_France

Thats quite harsh isn't it?

[Communal concils]

It does, however, hurt the country that people are emigrating from, because they lose a great deal of capital to wealthier countries.

Sure, it's kind of the point that it do so. But you see where the problem comes in: reduce immigration, jerbs move away, less money circulates domestically, and now it's on the head of the party that engineered the policy. That ain't good press, if you're gonna lose anyways may as well choose the loss that makes you look better in the end.

My argument against mass immigration is not really base on the ideal that it ruins the earnings of the native proletariat under a capitalist system. the sociological institutional structures of society can't completely deal in a process of just inviting everyone in. Such a position is as flawed as anarchism. It ignores the humanitarian and legislative problems that result from the withering away of certain systems. From what I read, it seems like you support the increase of proletariat suffering under simplistic and humanist morality.

Sure, maybe, but neither can they deal with mass unemployment.
As I've said, that "increase in suffering" is going to happen anyways, so long as labour costs remain uneven at a global level. If you can't stop it, then the real trick is coming off looking good. Let others tie their political nooses, ya know?

1. Your response to UMN is another argument that mirrors Neo-Liberal talking points. according to them, bring free labor to them is more cheaper than them going tot he free labor source.

2. The problem with this is that mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation. I can say that not suppressing murders does not stop murder, and doing actions would not stop it from happening. that is comparable to your argument. Something happening regardless of a certain action does not negate it. If all of these arguments were justified under accelerationism, I would find it okay, but it doesn't seem so.

[Communal concils]

Do they generate a surplus-value? They proles. Lumpen was mostly a snarl world for the chronically un/underemployed.

No i meant this definition:

They belonged for the most part to the lumpenproletariat, which forms a mass clearly distinguished from the industrial proletariat in all large cities, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the refuse of society, people without a fixed line of work.

Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenpro ... _on_France

Thats quite harsh isn't it?

I don't trust Wikipedia, but okay.

[Kubra]

Do they generate a surplus-value? They proles. Lumpen was mostly a snarl world for the chronically un/underemployed.

No i meant this definition:

They belonged for the most part to the lumpenproletariat, which forms a mass clearly distinguished from the industrial proletariat in all large cities, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the refuse of society, people without a fixed line of work.

Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenpro ... _on_France

Thats quite harsh isn't it?

yeah, and you can see why I called it a snarl word, no?
in any case, immigrants are usually brought in with the assumption that they're going to work. I've been around enough rough neighbs to know its us disaffected locals who end up lumpen.

Sure, it's kind of the point that it do so. But you see where the problem comes in: reduce immigration, jerbs move away, less money circulates domestically, and now it's on the head of the party that engineered the policy. That ain't good press, if you're gonna lose anyways may as well choose the loss that makes you look better in the end.
Sure, maybe, but neither can they deal with mass unemployment.
As I've said, that "increase in suffering" is going to happen anyways, so long as labour costs remain uneven at a global level. If you can't stop it, then the real trick is coming off looking good. Let others tie their political nooses, ya know?

1. Your response to UMN is another argument that mirrors Neo-Liberal talking points. according to them, bring free labor to them is more cheaper than them going tot he free labor source.

2. The problem with this is that mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation. I can say that not suppressing murders does not stop murder, and doing actions would not stop it from happening. that is comparable to your argument. Something happening regardless of a certain action does not negate it. If all of these arguments were justified under accelerationism, I would find it okay, but it doesn't seem so.

And it is cheaper, where policy allows it. Where policy does not allow it, other alternatives towards cheap come into play. Play a game of tag, make up some arbitrary rule, see how the game changes in the race towards the fixed goal (tagging and not being tagged). That's the business of business, bruh.

If something's gonna happen something's gonna happen. It's mass unemployment or harsh downward pressure on wages. Either way, we're all gonna be worse off in the worst way. I ain't the one who runs the game man, I don't wanna play it as much as anyone else. I ain't suggesting grand revolutionary solutions (except tongue-in-cheek) because I ain't no trot, I *know* that I'm irrelevant.

[Kubra]

No i meant this definition:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenpro ... _on_France

Thats quite harsh isn't it?

I don't trust Wikipedia, but okay.

It's a direct quote from Marx. I mean, I can bring up the original source, if that's what you fancy.

[Communal concils]

1. Your response to UMN is another argument that mirrors Neo-Liberal talking points. according to them, bring free labor to them is more cheaper than them going tot he free labor source.

2. The problem with this is that mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation. I can say that not suppressing murders does not stop murder, and doing actions would not stop it from happening. that is comparable to your argument. Something happening regardless of a certain action does not negate it. If all of these arguments were justified under accelerationism, I would find it okay, but it doesn't seem so.

And it is cheaper, where policy allows it. Where policy does not allow it, other alternatives towards cheap come into play. Play a game of tag, make up some arbitrary rule, see how the game changes in the race towards the fixed goal (tagging and not being tagged). That's the business of business, bruh.

If something's gonna happen something's gonna happen. It's mass unemployment or harsh downward pressure on wages. Either way, we're all gonna be worse off in the worst way. I ain't the one who runs the game man, I don't wanna play it as much as anyone else. I ain't suggesting grand revolutionary solutions (except tongue-in-cheek) because I ain't no trot, I *know* that I'm irrelevant.

okay.

[Communal concils]

I don't trust Wikipedia, but okay.

It's a direct quote from Marx. I mean, I can bring up the original source, if that's what you fancy.

I would enjoy a source. If I was to guess, it would come from Marxist.org.

[Kubra]

And it is cheaper, where policy allows it. Where policy does not allow it, other alternatives towards cheap come into play. Play a game of tag, make up some arbitrary rule, see how the game changes in the race towards the fixed goal (tagging and not being tagged). That's the business of business, bruh.

If something's gonna happen something's gonna happen. It's mass unemployment or harsh downward pressure on wages. Either way, we're all gonna be worse off in the worst way. I ain't the one who runs the game man, I don't wanna play it as much as anyone else. I ain't suggesting grand revolutionary solutions (except tongue-in-cheek) because I ain't no trot, I *know* that I'm irrelevant.

okay.

Well, I'm not quite satisfied. Mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation? Yes, I do think so, but I'm curious on the grounds by which *you* think so. Could you elaborate?

[Kubra]

It's a direct quote from Marx. I mean, I can bring up the original source, if that's what you fancy.

I would enjoy a source. If I was to guess, it would come from Marxist.org.

gotchu fam

[Communal concils]

okay.

Well, I'm not quite satisfied. Mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation? Yes, I do think so, but I'm curious on the grounds by which *you* think so. Could you elaborate?

1. I think it would be best if companies leave the nation. I have no reason as a socialist to really benefit the hoarders of capital.

2. However, waiting to solve problems is not really something we should embrace. what matter is now. There will be poverty and societal ills regardless of immigration policy, but that does not mean that it doesn't matter. Flooding a nation with proletarians would force all of them into being urban lumpens that live in slums are similar situations. it would also cause antagonisms with different demographics. So, I feel like such a thing would speed up the rise of fascism and it would intersect with policies like gentrification.

[Communal concils]

I would enjoy a source. If I was to guess, it would come from Marxist.org.

gotchu fam

oh never mind, I have a physical copy of the 18th brumaire.

[Kubra]

Well, I'm not quite satisfied. Mass unemployment does not mean the same amount in either situation? Yes, I do think so, but I'm curious on the grounds by which *you* think so. Could you elaborate?

1. I think it would be best if companies leave the nation. I have no reason as a socialist to really benefit the hoarders of capital.

2. However, waiting to solve problems is not really something we should embrace. what matter is now. There will be poverty and societal ills regardless of immigration policy, but that does not mean that it doesn't matter. Flooding a nation with proletarians would force all of them into being urban lumpens that live in slums are similar situations. it would also cause antagonisms with different demographics. So, I feel like such a thing would speed up the rise of fascism and it would intersect with policies like gentrification.

And here's the problem.

When I said "abolish the wage system" I said so tongue-in-cheek. I mean, that really is my preferred solution, honest to god, but y'know when we use revolution as a deus ex machina we really do trivialise the whole thing.
As it stands, they're gonna live an immiserated existence, at here or abroad, and *so will we*. Net negative, man.
As always, Saint Marx guides my hand. Most of what I have said has its origins in Marx discussing the very phenomena we are, in relation to Irish labour being sent en masse to England for more or less the same reasons, merely updating for the fact that eventually the irish just become normal ol' proles, indistinguishable from the lot.
Immigration scares come and go, man. They do so for, well, pretty much the same reasons. Like nearly all the time.