If you are against allowing refugees into first world countries,
1. You are in favor of them dying in wars, drowning to death, or getting shot by vigilantes/border patrols. Don't give me that shit about "we have to focus on ending the root cause of the issue," of COURSE we have to stop imperialism, but in the meantime, we have to take in the refugees. Even Zizek recognizes this.
2. You are ignoring global warming. It will be IMPOSSIBLE for hundreds of millions of people to survive in the global South due to climate change. They will have to migrate North, to first world countries. When we have a communist revolution, we will have to manage bringing in those people. If we let them die, we are not communists. Thus, an unconditionally pro-refugee stance is the only appropriate stance for communists now AND in the future.
If you refuse to take a pro-refugee stance, you are a crypto-fascist. Period.
Supporting policies that are pro-refugee is very different from using rhetoric that places more importance on the welfare of refugees than class consciousness, and you're asking us to do the latter rather than the former.
>using rhetoric that places more importance on the welfare of refugees than class consciousness
If you aren't concerned about the well being of refugees, who are WORKING CLASS, then you are not class conscious, you are a chauvinist crypto-fascist.
>you're asking us to do the latter rather than the former.
Please point out where I have done that.
We are concerned, but if we signal to class-unconscious proles concerned about how immigration and helping refugees expands the reserve army of labor and harms their material conditions with morality about how refugee lives matter rather than pointing out how allowing the reserve army of labor to exist in the first place is ridiculous he'll get the perception his interests and ours are different and walk off to the fascists who promise to get rid of the refugee instead.
>if we signal to class-unconscious proles concerned about how immigration and helping refugees expands the reserve army of labor and harms their material conditions with morality about how refugee lives matter rather than pointing out how allowing the reserve army of labor to exist in the first place is ridiculous he'll get the perception his interests and ours are different and walk off to the fascists who promise to get rid of the refugee instead.
You're an opportunist fighting a losing battle to win the sympathies of delusional fascist sympathizers. These people ignore:
-and many other economic phenomena
Our goal is COMMUNISM, not social democratic reforms that wither under the slightest indication of labor market competition. Only COMMUNISM can feed everyone, including the naturalized refugees, while implementing full automation and cutting our labor hours in half. If you pander to these first-world chauvinists, you are advocating nothing short of genocide, and you are a crypto-fascist.
A million refugees could drown and I wouldn't shed a tear. I don't need your moral guilt OP. When do we say enough is enough? Surely we can't take, house and feed them all. I don't really care if you call me a crypto-fash, at least I'm not a anarkiddie(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
immigrants are class conscious so yeah let them in and fight alongside us. it will be a matter of convincing the indigenous proletariat that the fall in wages is a result of the imperialist wars, not the pro-refugee policy
The fall in wages is due to capitalism. The USA has seen a massive fall in wages since the fall of the USSR, even though the USA takes in virtually no refugees from the wars it starts.
>Surely we can't take, house and feed them all.
Lucky for us they are willing to contribute their labour.
right but wages will go below equilibrium with immigrant competition and workers will be very mad and possibly go fash if we don't stop them
This is true, the amount of African Communists is astonishing. Talking to immigrants over here, most of the time they have no political opinion or they are communists, it's pretty hard to find exceptions to this rule.
It's almost like you should be organizing labor to get higher wages.
>right but wages will go below equilibrium
>go below equilibrium
I didn't say the delusional fascist sympathizers weren't deluded and I also didn't deny capitalism's inability to answer these problems. All that's left in your post is that I'm "pandering" to the chauvinists by continuing to advance refugee-friendly policies but not coming out of the gate in conversation with them and telling them we support a policy that under capitalism endangers their material conditions. If they ask, we say we do, of course, but we explain why rather than deny ourselves any chance to make them not a class traitor short of divine intervention.
So are you or are you not in favor of allowing mass-migration of refugees from war and climate change? If you are, then what are you even arguing about?
Read Marx, the market equilibrium refers to how the price circulates around it's value. Value which is determented by the labour theory of value. I am anarchkiddie and I know this
honestly mass-migration might actually be the situation that triggers the communist revolution. it creates, along with the internet, the most truly international proletariat we've seen so far.
Lol. what the fuck is with the reddit shit like this these days?
I am (though I'd much prefer if we could end capitalism already and alter material conditions so that the refugees didn't feel pressure to flee their homelands, as I like having a shared cultural background and language with those around me); I'm solely arguing about whether in propaganda we should position ourselves as reactionaries against "injustice" or material advocates for the world's people, especially the proletariat, against the inherent flaws of capitalism; I pick the latter, rather than the former.
I just met a Syrian qt earlier today in the streets, and she was interested in the concert I'm organizing with my friends, so now I have no problem with refugees whatsoever tbh
>though I'd much prefer if we could end capitalism already and alter material conditions so that the refugees didn't feel pressure to flee their homelands, as I like having a shared cultural background and language with those around me
This is pure idealism as I've already demonstrated. Global warming is going to take at least a century to reverse, and that's only after we've managed to stop it, which itself is going to take decades of communist struggle. We will have hundreds of millions of climate refugees from flooding, drought, fires, and so on. It is the number one material crisis of our time. If you are a communist, it is your duty to fully and unabashedly account for this fact. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims."
the reactionaries are really scared that the refugee masses are going to destroy the west. while obviously this is overblown paranoia, we should find optimism in their fear. it's the tired, huddled proletariat that are supposed to overthrow the capitalists, after all. we should be far more worried about jobs going overseas than workers coming here; when jobs go overseas, we lose workers to organize.
The only way to work with these reactionaries is to propagandize and educate them so that they STOP BEING REACTIONARY. If they don't recognize the need for international solidarity, they simply can't be comrades.
>it's the tired, huddled proletariat that are supposed to overthrow the capitalists, after all
Which is why we openly side with the oppressed nations and the poor, not reactionary labor aristocrats with delusional petite-bourgeois aspirations.
You are spreading a cartoonish caricature of Stalin. One of Stalin's major accomplishments (really his greatest accomplishment) was preventing fascist genocide. The USSR saved countless millions of lives from the Nazis and Japanese. Stalin would undoubtedly side with the huddled masses of refugees today.
Funny, you can't and never will find any quotes from Stalin, Lenin, or Marx to support genocide against refugees.
What are you even trying to say? Seems like you are desperately trying to find quotes to support your racism from somewhere where it doesnt exist.
>immigrants are class conscious
Absolutely not universally true. In sweden we have a bunch of spooked muslims who want to create their own little muslim societies in the "ghettos" where most of them live. We have a problem of segregation. We have muslim schools which only make this problem worse. We have a serious problem with opression of women in areas where a lot of muslim immigrants live. Of course not all muslims have these views and of course there are many comrades and potential comrade among muslim immigrants as well. But I do think the problem of importing an extremely conservative, religious and spooked culture is real and needs to be handled some way or another.
Pic related is Amineh Kakabaveh, member of the swedish Left Party and a member of parliament. She is a Marxist and in her youth she was a peshmerga soldier in Iran and Iraq. People in her party have been calling her a racist and tried to purge her from the party because she speaks about the problem of women's rights in the swedish muslim community.
>international solidarity is neoliberalism
>she was a peshmerga soldier in Iran and Iraq
So she was a NATO puppet? Great credentials, now I really trust her opinion on muh evil Muslim immigrunts
>decreasing the standard of living in order to save other people
You are still thinking with the capitalist mentality that resources are scarce and feeding someone else is automatically out of your meal. Take the stalin moustache out and walk to the gulag, you don't even deserve a ride.
Why do refugees need to go into first world countries? Why can't Syrian refugees just go to say the UAE or Jordan?
Also we must not forget, most refugees from the Middle East are Reactionaries. Most (Not all of course) are against Women's rights and wish to execute homosexuals. As a Socialist I oppose their legitimate sexism, I will not advocate for the majority of refugees to enter my country. All that will do is increase Reactionary and crypto-fascist actions similar to what we see with Neo-Nazis and the broader Alt-Right. It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with their culture, if there were refugees from say, Brazil or India, I wouldn't have a problem with taking them in.
I sell cigarettes to immigrants all day and while I wouldn't say that they're all commies they are at least familiar with working hard and getting screwed for their trouble. The declining economy is disillusioning them further in regards to the viability or preferability of Capitalism, because they leave their country where they're barely subsisting only to come to the US to get jobs that enable them to continue barely subsisting.
Some I meet are out-and-out Communist, but the majority are people just trying to get by. Some of my customers even voted for Trump thinking he'd bring back or create better jobs.
I guess that's how I'd characterize the majority of working people that I know, foreign or native. They know something is fucked, and something needs to be changed, but they aren't sure what or what to do about it.
>Why do refugees need to go into first world countries? Why can't Syrian refugees just go to say the UAE or Jordan?
Because of climate change. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. are an affront to common sense as they stand, and it will be impossible for people to live there in the future. Also, Jordan has taken in millions of refugees.
>Also we must not forget, most refugees from the Middle East are Reactionaries.
You are a reactionary.
Jordan has one of the highest refugee populations in the world. Almost a third of their entire population is made up of refugees.
Every single house in Jordan has a refugee or family of refugees in it you fucking prick.
>You are still thinking with the capitalist mentality that resources are scarce and feeding someone else is automatically out of your meal.
I don't even know what post you're replying to (seems to have been deleted) but what the fuck. Yes, there is a limited amount of resources and if you're gonna have a welfare state there needs to be enough people working (and capitalists making profit) to tax and redistribute money from, and not too many people that money needs to be redistributed to. Taking in refugees (I can only speak for Sweden) and providing them with food, housing, education (general education and teaching them swedish), is actually insanely expensive, and it takes many years before even half of them have a job (note that I'm talking about refugees here, not labour immigration). Also, if the number of people that immigrate is large enough, they won't be forced to assimilate, which creates a potential for ethnic segregation (which is now a real thing in Sweden) and all the problems that come with that.
None of that means we shouldn't let refugees into our country, but pretending it's not a challange or couldn't cause a bunch of serious problems, because it's "capitalist mentality" to think there aren't infinite resources, is fucking retarded.
Well obviously we need to get rid of these to make the resources last for everyone. We are never going to manage feeding everyone if some of the people are destroying the food and crops in order to keep price artificially high.
>Yes, there is a limited amount of resources
Not for food, which is the most important.
>providing them with food, housing, education (general education and teaching them swedish), is actually insanely expensive, and it takes many years before even half of them have a job
That's because of capitalism. We will have full employment. Period, the end.
>Also, if the number of people that immigrate is large enough, they won't be forced to assimilate, which creates a potential for ethnic segregation (which is now a real thing in Sweden) and all the problems that come with that.
So have cultural exchange programs, regional refugee quotas, etc and gulag any reactionaries (on either side) who oppose living side by side. It's not their fault that the first world ruined their country with pollution. First worlders will have to adapt too.
Yes there are real problems we will have to deal with, but bringing them up in the manner of an objection is disingenuous.
I think most people on this board want to get rid of capitalism, but there is (or was until very recently) a pretty huge number of refugees immigrating to Sweden under this system. It doesn't really matter how a post-capitalist system would handle immigration, if we in reality are still stuck with a degenerated succdem / neoliberal capitalist system. The end of capitalism is not in sight yet, and even if there was a communist revolution lead by fucking Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov in Sweden tomorrow, capitalism would not be possible to abolish in one stroke. There are problems caused by immigration under capitalism and we will have to deal with, and experience the consequences of those problems under capitalism.
>That's because of capitalism.
See what I wrote above.
>So have cultural exchange programs, regional refugee quotas, etc and gulag any reactionaries (on either side) who oppose living side by side.
Yes. What I should have mentioned is that many of the potential problems of large immigration are made worse by our current socdem government (it was exactly the same with the liberal/conservative government before it). They encourage and exacerbate segregation by allowing islamic schools, giving money to islamic organisations, etc. If you, for example, forced (or incentivized) immigrants to live in an area where they only had blonde, blue eyed, swedish neighbours and closed down all muslim private schools, you would get accused of erasing their culture (which, to be fair, would be kinda true), and of being some fascistic racist oppressor, but I think that that, among other things, absolutely has to be done at this point.
>If you are against allowing refugees into first world countries,
I know it will happen but I don't think we can realistically take everyone who walks over an arbitrary border. I'm not against the inevitability but I'm not for mass immigration.
>1. You are in favor of them dying in wars, drowning to death, or getting shot by vigilantes/border patrols.
Nice pathos, morals are bourgeois. Instead of letting them die how about build shelters and communities for them where they can exist.
>2. You are ignoring global warming. It will be IMPOSSIBLE for hundreds of millions of people to survive in the global South due to climate change.
>If you aren't open borders then you deny climate science
>It will be IMPOSSIBLE for hundreds of millions of people to survive in the global South due to climate change. They will have to migrate North, to first world countries.
You know climate change will also affect developed countries too? Parts of the US and EU will see people leaving low-lying coastal cities. I live in the deep south US in a low lying delta state and we are already seeing communities disappear from climate change, it will be inevitable and slow. Not some fast apocalypse.
>When we have a communist revolution, we will have to manage bringing in those people.
How? Setting up centers, kitchens, and hospitals? With what materials and how will you manage that and a revolution at the same time?
>If we let them die, we are not communists.
Not everyone here is a communist though and even then, communist is a broad term and can mean a wide variety of ideas and ideologies.
>Thus, an unconditionally pro-refugee stance is the only appropriate stance for communists now AND in the future.
This stance isn't even working now, look at how the reactionary right capitalizes on the refugees crisis. We need to help refugees but also try to keep it at a reasonable level to prevent outcry and strain on resources. The thought that we can take on all of them is unrealistic. We need to find a way to minimize social damage. That also means stopping imperialist wars
>If you refuse to take a pro-refugee stance, you are a crypto-fascist. Period.
Ok. Nice no true Scotsman OP
>If you refuse to take a pro-refugee stance, you are a crypto-fascist
This kind of pseudo-humanism is exactly why the proles vote for conservatives or nationalists instead of leftists.
Where do you think the migrants centers are?
They are all in prole suburbs because rich pseudo-humanists don't want them in their neibourhood.
What kind of job do you think migrants apply to?
Low-skilled jobs of course but pseudo-humanists don't care about it because they think any first-world guy must be high-skilled and/or muh privileged.
Labor isn’t everything there are real mineral scarcities that exist. As well as environmental problems that come from an increase in housing and extraction of all resource to make the possibility of moving HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. Geo-engineering is a much more practical solution.
>Global warming is going to take at least a century to reverse
>Not for food, which is the most important.
food requires land to grow
>That's because of capitalism. We will have full employment. Period, the end.
Building houses takes time as well as lot’s of raw resources, which are limited
>It doesn't really matter how a post-capitalist system would handle immigration
actually, it does since we are fighting for communism.
>The end of capitalism is not in sight yet
It is because the climate crisis is the end of capitalism.
>You know climate change will also affect developed countries too?
The North is actually going to benefit.
>This kind of pseudo-humanism
Being against genocide is "pseudo-humanism"?
>the proles vote for conservatives or nationalists
Actually, they don't.
>food requires land to grow
So? What's your point?
>Building houses takes time as well as lot’s of raw resources, which are limited
And? What do you think the Soviets did? They build communal housing.
west virginia sure is a bourgeois area
100% agree with OP
NO BORDERS NO NATIONS STOP THE DEPORTATIONS
>Being against genocide is "pseudo-humanism"?
How is it a genocide? It's not the first-world that will kill them, it's the climate.
>>the proles vote for conservatives or nationalists
>Actually, they don't.
You're delusional, see pic related.
Nothing will ever be good or work well under capitalism, so its useless to discuss pre-revolution politics. What you should do is use that excellent immigration against the capitalists/succdems by explaining your countrymen how the problems of immigration would vanish along with capitalism. You sound like you have completely given up and accepted that your country's future is in the hands of capitalists and succdems. Do not fucking do that, comrade!
>So? What's your point?
As more people move to the first world more and more farmland in the first world will turn into apartments for housing. Which can’t grow food outside of gardens which grow less food then which the household consumes. Also modern agriculture methods rely of fertilizer which need phosphorus and oil, which are running out of supply. This will force a reversion to organic agricultural methods which will need more then DOUBAL the space as modern agriculture methods. Geo engineering is the ONLY solution to the climate crisis. If we aren’t able to do this then not only will all of the third world have to move to the first world, but also all of the farmland in the third world will become unusable. This WILL lead to a massive famine the likes of which we’ve never seen.
I stress this very hard. Geo engineering is the ONLY solution to global warming because without farmland in the third world and with an increased population per capita there will be mass famines.
Do you honestly think there is going to be not enough space for both housing and farmland, or are you just grasping at straws to excuse your xenophobia? I really can't tell, but seriously don't worry, there is quite a lot of land left still.
The working class in all of the USA overwhelmingly doesn't vote at all.
>How is it a genocide? It's not the first-world that will kill them, it's the climate.
The climate generated by first-world pollution, and they die because of first-world resource hoarding? That's genocide.
>You're delusional, see pic related.
In your pic, pro-refugee politicians are getting more votes from proles than anti-refugee politicians. Also, in the second round of the election, France had a historically low voter turnout rate, proving that the proles are apathetic to bourgeois politicians such as Le Pen.
>Do you honestly think there is going to be not enough space for both housing and farmland
I don’t think there will be enough space because the third world will be unable to produce food, the first world’s population will increase by a lot, and third (most important) phosphorus and oil will run out meaning that there will be no more modern agriculture. Thus we’ll have to revert to organic agriculture which takes up more then TWICE the space of land then modern agriculture does. You clearly know NOTHING about agriculture, urbanite.
Brexit voters were more likely to be proles then remain voters.
Tons of Brexit voters backed labour in 2017.
>As more people move to the first world more and more farmland in the first world will turn into apartments for housing.
Fullretard. Responsible communist urban development planning will make sure that people concentrate in tight-knit city communities.
>Also modern agriculture methods rely of fertilizer which need phosphorus and oil, which are running out of supply
We will have plenty of phosphorous and oil for agriculture when we end our use of oil for energy.
>This will force a reversion to organic agricultural methods which will need more then DOUBAL the space as modern agriculture methods.
We have enough farmland, we just have to use it effectively (no more farming corn for fucking soda syrup, no more beef farming).
>Geo engineering is the ONLY solution to the climate crisis.
It will still take many decades.
>If we aren’t able to do this then not only will all of the third world have to move to the first world, but also all of the farmland in the third world will become unusable.
This is going to happen, because we won't have a communist revolution until the climate crisis really hits. So stop sticking your head in the sand and plan accordingly.
a huge amount of working class voters stayed in, also >>2071608
>It's literally impossible for current and near future climate refugees to take shelter in the US without destroying the US.
>When the hundreds of millions at the bottom of the supply chain ask to come to first world countries it would be civilization-scale suicide to say yes. Sorry, OP, that's a fucking fact.
Nope, fascist fear-mongering.
>If they don't feel like fighting climate change, they're going to die. End of story, it's on them, only the most muh muh privileged petit-booj scum will crawl out of SE asia, africa, latin america to move to OPEC countries, and they deserve to die anyway for causing climate change.
The USA and Europe are by far the hugest culprits in global warming. Kill yourself.
>It's literally impossible for current and near future climate refugees to take shelter in the US without destroying the US.
>When the hundreds of millions at the bottom of the supply chain ask to come to first world countries it would be civilization-scale suicide to say yes
are these bad?
Pretty much all the problems you named are only problems in capitalist system, we will finally get rid of it when our life depends on it. There are already alternative engines that don't run on oil, in fact the first automobile engine ran on ethanol. Running out of phosphorus can be a doozy, but definitely not the end of the world. We don't have to revert back to organic for sure, and concentrating more on vegetable than animal farms will save tons and tons of space. Insects will be the main source of protein in the future, and they already are part of the asian cuisine.
Basically you are right that it will be a tough situation, but its definitely not as bad as you make it sound, the space is not going to end as long as we do the food growing and housing rationally.
Resource scarcity is a very real thing that will affect almost every society on the planet within the coming decades. Modern industrial agriculture is incredibly dependent on cheap oil and electricity to provide high yields and transport food quickly to where it is wanted. Once oil starts getting scarcer and prices start going up, shortages of goods will become an increasing reality for even the most wealthy nations. The lifestyles of abundance enjoyed in America and Europe will slowly go extinct as everyone is forced to live with less.
Managing this gradual impoverishment of the population would be bad enough, but you want to import piles of refugees from the hardest-stricken areas to the already straining industrialized west. There's not enough resources to provide all these people with first-world standards of living already, so that means they're relegated to ghettoes or being second-class citizens. So on the one hand you have native populations getting poorer, while boatloads of foreigners are coming in and ostensibly getting 'richer'. That's a recipe for riots and pogroms if I've ever heard one.
And before some eco-stalinist pissant shows up and claims that revolution will save us all, remember that mass violence or mass death are the only forces in human history which have successfully reduced inequality. You will require tremendous amounts of repression and mass killings to forcibly reduce global inequality to the level that will allow us all to live sustainably in a world with scarce oil and regular climate emergencies. I suspect you will find very few people willing to carry out this violence, even if they stand to benefit.
>I suspect you will find very few people willing to carry out this violence, even if they stand to benefit.
I fear you may be proved wrong in time.
You are just making apologetics for capitalism and genocide. Stupid anprim.
Resource scarcity is mainly capitalist system's fault, where resources are handled recklessly; on the other hand they are being destroyed to artificially raise value, and the otherhand they are being consumed very inefficiently because the culture and marketing encourages excess.
In any leftist system where resources are handled with care and rationality, there will be no huge problem with scarcity. Of course the longer it takes before capitalism is stopped, the longer it will take to bounce back up and revert the damage done by the irrational and rapid consumption.
>Fullretard. Responsible communist urban development planning will make sure that people concentrate in tight-knit city communities.
So you’re planing to build lot’s of sky scrapers. I think I have to post that infographic again.
>We will have plenty of phosphorous and oil for agriculture when we end our use of oil for energy.
Energy consumption doesn’t use phosphorous. Also oil is need to create plastics and artificial fibers. Without oil for artificial fibers we’ll need to use more farmland for wool and cotton and less for food.
>We have enough farmland
No we don’t. Lot’s of farmland will be destroyed because it’s IN the third world. Also this will destroy the America south and California which has lot’s of farmland.
>It will still take many decades.
So will the effects of global warming which will make the middle east uninhabitable. The middle east being uninhabitable will take around seventy years to happen at current emission rates when current emission rates are expected to stagnate for a bit then start decreasing in a decade.
>This is going to happen, because we won't have a communist revolution until the climate crisis really hits
Another economic crash is expected to happen soon. And if you’re correct then most resources will be depleted and the only type of communism we’ll get is primitive communism.
>Pretty much all the problems you named are only problems in capitalist system
I named problems with current resource consumption. These problem exist regardless of economic system.
>There are already alternative engines that don't run on oil, in fact the first automobile engine ran on ethanol.
Ethanol still admits CO2 and needs corn to be grown to be produced. Also plastic and artificial fibers need oil to be produced. Oil is used for more then just energy consumption.
>Running out of phosphorus can be a doozy, but definitely not the end of the world.
It will be. It’s a bigger problem then climate change it’s self. Our current agriculture methods require phosphorus to function.
If I was an anarchist I’d be a green anarchist.
>there will be no huge problem with scarcity
That’s where you’re wrong. Most industry isn’t sustainable, even if it was efficiently planned.
I bear no love for capitalism or the decadent, overconsuming west. If you want to provoke a new world war between the global north and global south over who gets to enjoy the last of the oil and arable land, then good luck with that, I guess.
My point was that reducing consumption in the west, and providing sustainable and equal living standards for undeveloped societies, are two different issues which should be solved separately. We start by dismantling capital and the state at home, which removes the imperialist yoke from the rest of the world and provides them with the agency to do the same, themselves.
Asking that we do both at once is basically providing fodder for the neocons and white nationalists of the not too distant future. The internet is already festering with people demanding that the solution to resource and population problems is to kill off all the 'overbreeding blacks and violent, murderous muslims' (even in this very thread!)
>Burgers is de debbil
>China dindu nuffin
We can overcome a lot of shortages with heavy recycling. Also, that pic is clearly bullshit because there's a ton of resources that simply haven't been discovered yet.
>So you’re planing to build lot’s of sky scrapers.
No, you don't need sky scrapers. Four or five story buildings are fine once you demolish suburbs, take over inefficient upper-class housing, etc.
>Energy consumption doesn’t use phosphorous. Also oil is need to create plastics and artificial fibers. Without oil for artificial fibers we’ll need to use more farmland for wool and cotton and less for food.
Recycling, hemp, cotton, and also we will not run out of oil.
>No we don’t. Lot’s of farmland will be destroyed because it’s IN the third world. Also this will destroy the America south and California which has lot’s of farmland.
It creates new farmland in the North as well.
>So will the effects of global warming which will make the middle east uninhabitable. The middle east being uninhabitable will take around seventy years to happen at current emission rates when current emission rates are expected to stagnate for a bit then start decreasing in a decade.
Your point? The Middle East is going to become uninhabitable before we can make it better again.
>Another economic crash is expected to happen soon.
So what? It won't spark first world revolution. If you try to organize you will recognize how dire the situation is here in terms of organization.
Basically, you are saying we have a crisis coming, which is completely true (aside from some of your minor lies). But then you say communism can't fix it! Then why not just give up? Either we're doomed or we get communism. That's the only two options. You're not an ecologist or primitivist if you think communism isn't the solution, you're a nihilist.
Oh look, a disgusting chauvinist burger blaming one billion Chinese workers for the pollution they suffer through to make products FOR BURGERS. Meanwhile, the Chinese state is the world leader in adoption of renewables and green tech. I trust the party to turn it around a hundred times more than I trust any filthy burger who wants to blame other countries for the pollution caused by his decadent, wasteful lifestyle.
The utter delusion
>We can overcome a lot of shortages with heavy recycling. Also, that pic is clearly bullshit because there's a ton of resources that simply haven't been discovered yet.
Lot’s of forms of consumption can’t be recycled such as buildings or processing.Recycling is a Porky meme. Also the graph doesn’t account for increased demand which will come from new technologies as well as increased consumption in the third world due to industrialization.
>Four or five story buildings are fine once you demolish suburbs, take over inefficient upper-class housing, etc.
Four and five story buildings still consume lot’s of resources like iron.
>Your point? The Middle East is going to become uninhabitable before we can make it better again.
My point is the Middle East will NOT become uninhabitable or if it does it’s to late for the rest of the world to be saved. If the Middle East becomes uninhabitable then there will likely be a runaway greenhouse effect.
>Basically, you are saying we have a crisis coming, which is completely true (aside from some of your minor lies). But then you say communism can't fix it! Then why not just give up? Either we're doomed or we get communism. That's the only two options. You're not an ecologist or primitivist if you think communism isn't the solution, you're a nihilist.
I’m saying either humans go extinct or we’ll escape global warming barely untouched. If the latter happens communism, or a system similar to communism is inevitable.
>Meanwhile, the Chinese state is the world leader in adoption of renewables and green tech
China is currently the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.I hope they succeed in there renewable experiment otherwise we die.
The internet is ultra-reactionary It won’t create an international proletariat. That can only happen by people realizing they gain more from working together then they lose. Which will NOT happen on the internet.
>someone kept a vulgar comic i made literally three years ago and haven't seen once since
>tfw Canada will become the new global superpower
My god, what have we done.
Pretty much how I feel
There is definitely a point where it will be too late to stop a Nazi masturbation fantasy (or bastardized “class war” of the working and ruling classes against the permanently unemployed class) and the “we HAVE to let them in” rhetoric is likely to take us there
The goal is to not cross that point.
The beginning of a new telocracy.
The world is truly fucked.
this'll even get the burgers onboard with third world revolution
Good post. I think any support we give to the current refugee/immigration regime has to be conditional - the liberal or succdem parties of the political establishment have to give guarantees to local proletariat and the state has to take an active part in integration, housing and organisation of the incomers.
The current Wir schaffen das system of throwing them into random villages and suburbs that causes ghettoification is bound to cause the kinds of problems nativist alarmists are screeching about. Giving them some money and language classes staffed by volunteers is not enough.
>lots of Chief Central Planners ITT
>Surely we can't take, house and feed them all.
The global North and Australia are more than capable of taking in refugees. There are vast expanses of unoccupied land and it's better than leaving them out to die.
I love how you phrase it so patronizingly that they'd be unable to "house and feed" themselves. Seriously fuck off
This is why we need to work hard to cut the issue at its root - US enabling of Saudi/Wahabist power.
Look what a difference these bastards made to Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc. since the fall of secular pan-Arabists. Another 50 years from now when the climate refugees pour in, it will make all the difference what we did to stop Wahabist ideology from the root.
This also means cooperating with moderates and telling armchair idiots who can't tell "Islam" and "Wahabism" apart to fuck off.
The US and Southern Europe still gets fucked in that map. Also GDP isn't the end all for peace and development. You have to take HDI and other variables>>2071543
>US and China, Africa, Central America, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan get fucked. Well there goes the world’s bread basket
>Canada and Russia warm up. Well I can’t wait to see how we grow food in place with very poor soil quality and with no phosphorus.
>The climate generated by first-world pollution
I did not know that Brazil, Russia, India and China were first-world.
>In your pic, pro-refugee politicians are getting more votes from proles than anti-refugee politicians
Le Pen get the most prole votes, but I guess it's ok for you to count Macron as pro-migrant even if he's a fucking liberal because you're clearly a pseudo-humanist third worldist who care more about migrants than first world proles.
>the climate crisis is the end of capitalism
Nice prophecy, when the aliens are coming?
More seriously, you really underestimate the adaptation capacity of capitalism.
>I did not know that Brazil, Russia, India and China were first-world.
They're not, and they're not responsible for the bulk of climate change.
>muh electoral opportunism
>they're not responsible for the bulk of climate change
Complete denialism, as usual by third worldists.
>>muh electoral opportunism
>muh liberal globalism aka pseudo-humanism
>three times the population of the USA
>huge amount of pollution is production for Western consumption
>actually making serious plans (and already starting) to build an ecological society
>highly urban, tons of pedestrian traffic, electric trains, bicyclists, etc
>you literally can't participate in society without buying a car and driving everywhere
>disgusting, sprawling suburbs that destroy the environment and suck up resources
>no trains, shitty buses
>entire culture based around buying shit and creating artificial demand
>constantly eating beef
>constantly at war with the world, sucking up huge amounts of fuel for tanks, boats, trucks, etc. ALL OFF THE RECORD!
>Complete denialism, as usual by third worldists.
I'm not a third worldist, you're an imperialist.
>America represent the entire first-world
>>I'm not a third worldist
Yeah you're a third worldist, you want the first-world to accept every migrants instead of the third world, you're probably also a dengist as you seems to really like China.
>you're an imperialist
If defending the interests of first-world proles before the third-world is imperialism, then I'm an imperialist.
.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>In 2008, the four BRIC economies accounted for over one-third of global carbon emissions,
What was your point again?
Oh, so you're a cunt, I see.
His point was about that the first world isn’t entirely responsible for climate change. it’s a stupid point because point figures doesn’t create a solution.
she looks like a jedi
>Russia becomes stronger
we must make global warming happen
>muh climate change
This is how the international bourgeoisie turns you into controlled opposition
>you have to agree with me or your liderally a fascist!!
>climate change is a bourgeois conspiracy
You're as dumb as OP.
>immigration and helping refugees expands the reserve army of labor
Everyone who says stuff like this is a complete dumbass. The proletariat is international, the reserve army of labor is already international.
More to the point, there is far more surplus value to exploit from a Syrian in Turkey or Mexican in Mexico than if they make it to the core imperialist countries.
Dugin: Remember back to your early teachings. Limonov. "All those who gain power are afraid to lose it." Even the progressive Left.
Limonov: The progressive Left use their power for good.
Dugin: Good is a point of view, Limonov. And the Progressive Left’s point of view is not the only valid one. The Dark Lords of Nazbol believe in security and justice also, yet they are considered by the progressive left to be. . .
Limonov: . . . evil.
Dugin: . . . from a Socialist’s point of view. The Nationalists and the Socialists are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power. The difference between the two is the Nationalists are not afraid of the dark side of the folk politics. That is why they are more powerful.
Limonov: The Nationalists rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Dugin: And the Socialists don't?
Limonov: The Socialists are selfless . . . they only care about others.
Dugin: Or so you've been trained to believe. Why is it, then, that they have asked you to do something you feel is wrong?
Limonov: I'm not sure it's wrong.
Dugin: Have they asked you to betray the Bolshevik code? Russia? The orthodox church? Your own values? Think. Consider their motives. Keep your mind clear of assumptions. The fear of losing power is a weakness of both the Socialists and the Nationalists.
Limonov is deep in thought.
Dugin: (continuing) Did you ever hear the tragedy of Greggor Asser "the wise"?
Dugin: I thought not. It's not a story the Socialists would tell you. It's a Nazbol legend. Greggor Asser was a Not Socialist, so powerful and so wise he could use nationalism to influence the workers to create socialism … He had such knowledge of politics that he could even keep the ones he cared about from international capitalism.
Limonov: He could actually save people from Capitalism?
Dugin: The nationalist side of the Socialism is a pathway to many abilities some Trotskyists consider to be unnatural.
Limonov: What happened to him?
Dugin: He became so powerful . . . the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice Adolf Hitler everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. (smiles) Asser never saw it coming. It's ironic he could save others from Capitalism, but not himself.
Limonov: Is it possible to learn this power?
Dugin: Not from a Socialist
Fuck Dugin. Uphold Marxism-Limonovism!
Is this implying dugin is hitler or am I misremembering the prequels
> as I like having a shared cultural background
nigger, if you live in the west your cultural background is consumerist refiguring of an imagined national tradition.
this bullshit about culture is either cryptofash bullshit or a lack of understanding how much capitalism has erased any *actual* (and i doubt if they are national and if you truly can claim to have a connection to them) cultural values or traditiona
>Le Pen get the most prole votes
lies. she had the support of the towns and country and the petty bourg. The typical fucking enemies of communism anyways. also good job forgetting the proletariat of the fucking cities which is mostly non white, you dumb nigger
it's true though
the uneducated amongst proletariat, especially those who live in rural areas are always the most racist and reactionary. It's the duty of educated proles and petit bourgeois leftists to educate them, but at the moment they are being fed misinformation and led by the far right.
>she had the support of the towns and country and the petty bourg. The typical fucking enemies of communism anyways.
I know peti-bougs are shit, but why the hate on rural proles. Without the rural prols you’d be starving and dead. There’s more to France then fucking Paris.
>also good job forgetting the proletariat of the fucking cities which is mostly non white, you dumb nigger
I seriously doubt that French cities are majority non-French.
this what we need to do is start organizing in rural areas. If we could get farm workers to say pull of a farm strike it’d cause much more damage then an industrial strike because Porky would be literally starving. Also fuck the pety-bourg. And no family farmers are NOT pety-bourg there peasants.
I mean porky would obviously import caviar from russia while the proles starved. but yeah we definitely should be agitating in rural areas. cities are typically left leaning any way.
one of the reasons (I think) people in rural areas tend to be right wing is they tend not to meet an awful lot of people who aren't like them, people from different parts of the world or different cultures or different religions and so on, and so new ideas tend not to spread. I really don't know how it's possible to challenge that.
I'm starting to see why country french hate city french now
>Porky would be literally starving
90% of Australia is uninhabital.
>pretend to be communist
>focusing on anything but victory of the revolution against the capitalist economic substructure
Strike at the root, comrades. Everything else is liberals manipulating your sense of justice to protect their economic muh privilege.
It is not our duty to solve the contradictions of failing capitalism. It is our duty to empower the working classes of the world to rise up against the ruling class.
Read Lenin. He talks extensively about this in What Is To Be Done. He btfos your economist chauvinism.
> but in the meantime, we have to take in the refugees. Even Zizek recognizes this
Uh, no. He doesn't want closed borders but he wants a tightly controlled system and considers many European countries to be taking more than enough refugees at the moment. So not "the refugees", only some of them.
>an unconditionally pro-refugee stance is the only appropriate stance for communists now AND in the future.
Define dis. Every refugee that gets here or just a set amount? I'm selfish enough to refuse taking in a million but I can deal with like the usual amount that we used to take, as long as we make sure to accept only people who truly are in danger.
Furthermore, I don't think taking in a ridiculously high amount of refugees is going to help communism. It'll probably harm all leftist causes, if anything, if not by itself, then by its reaction in the native poeple of the country.
And we need to learn to take control of moving people around. An uncontrolled mass immigration whn climate change hits is not going to work. The Zizek route of tight control will be needed
>Uh, no. He doesn't want closed borders but he wants a tightly controlled system and considers many European countries to be taking more than enough refugees at the moment. So not "the refugees", only some of them.
Wrong, he does say take in all of them. What he means is that all of the European countries should be forced to take proportional numbers of refugees.
>Every refugee that gets here or just a set amount?
Every one has the right to move north when their land becomes uninhabitable. If you disagree, you are saying they should starve or drown to death.
a fucking thread died for this bullshit
>You are in favor of them dying in wars, drowning to death, or getting shot by vigilantes/border patrols.
Actually, I don't particular care. It has no direct bearing on my material self-interest. Make of that what you will.
>we have to take in the refugees.
>Even Zizek recognizes this.
Then he's spooked.
>You are ignoring global warming. It will be IMPOSSIBLE for hundreds of millions of people to survive in the global South due to climate change.
Ever heard of geo-engineering?
>If we let them die, we are not communists.
That's just your opinion.
>If you refuse to take a pro-refugee stance, you are a crypto-fascist. Period.
Cry me a river.
>immigrants are class conscious so yeah let them in and fight alongside us.
One of the few rational arguments for a pro-refugee stance in this thread.
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Butthurt liberal moderator detected.
But I'm a "leftist" therefore I could not possibly be in favor of Asserist-type policies!
I seriously don't get why the non-Western countries won't team up to overthrow the Western hegemony.
What exactly is it in terms of material value that the west contributes to these countries? What is actually being exported besides a few luxury items (Cars, alcohol, watches) for the upper class?
The whole financial system of the west revolves around sucking developing countries dry of surplus value. Oil, electronics, clothing, etc. The west is mostly able to feed itself, but aside from that and luxury items, most consumer products and vital energy resources come from non-Western countries.
Instead of asking if the West should let in more refugees; so they can either rot at the bottom of the pyramid or become porkies themselves. Why are these countries letting themselves get fucked over by the West?
This isn't the 19th century anymore. What could Western countries do if the entire South decides to simultaneously nationalize or collectivize Western owned assets?
Gaddafi couldn't pull it off and paid with his life. But why are Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest of Africa, Asia and South America playing along with this?
kill this piece of shit
>I seriously don't get why the non-Western countries won't team up to overthrow the Western hegemony
Why do you think it's so important for all the western nations to have a dedicated intelligence agency and untold amounts of money poured into foreign destabilization and making sure insurgents with any revolutionary potential are stopped in their infancy?
>refugees, who are WORKING CLASS
They aren't working class, dipshit. They're from the class they have lived: peasantry, lumpen proletariat, middle class or upper class. They lost their property, but they're still the same person. You don't understand the first thing about class politics let alone communism.
>You don't understand the first thing about class politics let alone communism.
>class is an essential identity not tied to your direct relationship to the MoP
1. Militarized "camps" for refugees in their origin countries where they are documented, background checked etc
2. EU countries to indeed take proportional parts of the refugees
3. He opposes those "open border" style solutions in part because the would cause a crazy reaction from the Europeans who don't want that policy. That would seriously destroy our leftism.
4. The refugees would get less control over which country they get to g to.
This basically means lowering the amount of refugees from what it currently is for many countries, or at the very least, not growing it to taking in everyone who wants to get here. It would even lower because refugees could no longer choose to go to Sweden; some eastern european shithole might not be so tempting if they're not literally going to die in their home country.
I too enjoy calling anything I don't understand essentialist. Saying what class is doesn't tell you anything about how it functions retard.
To continue, "an unconditionally pro-refugee stance" in todays European context literally would mean taking in absolutely everyone who comes here and wants to stay. Our anarchists and liberal leftists are against returning a single soul to their home country, whether they are in direct danger or not, or limiting the amount taken in in any way. Even background checks and documentation are seen, by some, as dehumanizing and horrible. Any kind of control over the refugees would be bad in their eyes.
That is pure madness. even if we accept that the occasional terrorist attack and such don't matter, it would simply empower the far right.
>why don’t the Bourgeois team up to over through the Bourgeois?
I wonder why?
i see mods decided to do their job today
just report their shitposts when you see them
I support refugees coming in here *temporarily* and only if they decide to integrate into the nation that hosts them, by learning the language and the customs of it.
Also, I don't think illegal immigration helps anyone at all, since it makes people here slaves who can't even report their mistreatment, and worst of all, economic migration is a total mistake.
Holy shit this is great. Fukken saved
I am for killing every religious people as soon as possible if that's what you mean, and that includes moralists
Man you must be lucky that your middle school didn't block 8chan yet.
Strasserist's the name for un-ironic nazbols, right?
>Implying all people from Africa and The Middle East do is rape and kill blonde girls
>No revolutionary potential
I'm actually in favor of letting refugees in. The refugee crisis in Europe is just beginning. It will not end. It will get worse. Some of those refugees are already in their predicament due to climate change, by the way.
Strasserists are just soc-dems who like nationalism.
>you're just an out and out nazbol if you don't support global capital's labor policies and guilt tactics but wish to focus on dismantling their MIC and fixing the 'humanitarian' aid scam instead
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
further proves the point that "leftist politically incorrect" is an oxymoron
And that all that Stirnerposting was an ironic meme in vain.
Shit you might onto something there
Though Asser is a bit too authoritarian and conservative for my taste
What a truly abhorrent political ideology…