Leftism is inherently nationalistic as it aims to protect the lower class through improving the national industry and severely limiting low-skilled immigration, how come modern leftism is the complete opposite of what leftism used to be?
They're outsourcing their industries to shitholes for no other reason but to earn some shekels while the lower class is taking beatings for this
and they're mass-importing low-skilled thirld-worlders to drive wages down, while none of the crime or problems that follows will affect them as they're living in gated neighborhoods with no refugees or immigrants, all the while they're the ones who are pushing for the importation of said people
how can the left unJUST itself and return to its former glory, even communism looks attractive compared to the cancer that is modern decadent leftism
>Leftism is inherently nationalistic Communism is not leftist, then?
Jace Wood
Trotsky differs.
Jose Brown
communism is nationalistic
or has there been any """communistic""" country which hasn't had a limited immigration, while not outsourcing their industries?
Jordan Hughes
Communism has limited immigration because the system would collapse were it not isolated. Communism can only function if everyone is communistic, or everyone is kept out or inside your communistic utopia.
Hudson Smith
It's when there are more people competing for jobs more desperately that demands for pro-market concessions are more likely to succeed, due to the balance of power. If the unions are powerful and the workers have better job security and are less dependent on a job for survival, they are in a stronger position to reject capitalist demands. This is precisely why we cannot afford to let migrant workers undermine labor power in the West.
Workers in other countries must organize and keep demanding the same conditions as those enjoyed in the West. You might think they have nothing to bargain with because their conditions are poorer than in the West, but this is precisely their advantage: it's capitalists who need them due to the push for better conditions in the West, therefore the workers in the Third World can and will bargain away their competitiveness (that is, their low wages, their lack of labor regulations, low work safety...), which translates to reducing their exploitation (they'll get higher wages, more regulations, better work safety.) As their conditions improve, the exploited masses recover their dignity, become stronger, healthier and more educated, they can more easily defend their interests and refuse to be exploited since it's not a matter of survival anymore, etc. Eventually they'll come to match the Western workers in power.
Levi Wright
If demands from the workers in the West AND the Third World keep rising, the capitalists will be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The West will demand better conditions, so the Third World will be able to demand better conditions and close the gap, so the West can increase the gap again by demanding better conditions, the Third World will demand better conditions again etc. And so on until the capitalists are completely expropriated or the workers' conditions are more or less equal across the globe, with significant advances everywhere. The problem is that this coordination is not quite there today, and that's precisely because short-sighted greed pushes people to individually seek better living conditions at the expense of their class, giving themselves over to market forces and getting blown away one by one. In the same manner, states are desperately trying to outdo and undercut each others in the race for having the most competitive economy.
No, we don't need more people to come in our country to get exploited for minimum wage: in fact, if there aren't enough people willing to work for the wages offered, that means THE WAGE IS TOO DAMN LOW! It should be higher! The idea that we need to lower wages and relax labor laws for any reason is the biggest lie introduced by mainstream economists (well it's not quite a lie: it's what's in the capitalists' best interests.) And if capitalists want to move to poorer countries, that's because THE WAGE IS TOO DAMN LOW over there too! It should be higher! The economy is too competitive, the workers must TRASH it by demanding more and more until they grow fat and pampered and they're catered to like pashas and capitalists lose all incentive to move over there! Shorten the work day and the working week! Make work safety laws anti-business! 300 mandatory holidays per year! Another 60 days set aside for studies and training paid out of the company's pockets too! And the same over here, please!
Alexander Martinez
wishes doesn't translate to actual policy, open borders and the concious destruction of the national industries is inherently anti-leftist and anti-nationalistic
Carson Barnes
This pasta is arguing for closed borders and international coordination of national labor movements though.
Jack Green
Oh look another thread where autistic commie neckbeards pretend to be redpilled.
Parker Brown
Communist country is an oxymoron.
Jaxson Gray
no, i'd consider myself a nationalist or traditionalist, old leftism actually had some attractive ideas which protects the nation, while modern leftism is just pure cancer
Charles Bailey
It doesn't matter as its about the countries calling themselves communists, not the actual ideology itself
Ian Clark
>old leftism actually had some attractive ideas which protects the nation
No it did not. Socialism is by definition and has always been a cosmopolitan universal ideology. Socialism seeks to abolish borders and ethnicity and unite the "proletariat" under a stateless moneyless classless society.
Daniel Lewis
classic leftism was always internationalistic and see classes rather than nations. Your argument is flawed and makes no sense.
Adam Allen
explain the soviet union and china then, they both had and have a limited immigration and a protection of their industries, none of the old leftist countries sought to mass-import labor, their main goal was to improve the situation for their people, while modern leftism is the antithesis for just that
Adam Howard
>explain the soviet union and china then
The soviet union imported hundreds of thousands of young men from Africa. Many of them even stayed after their studies and indoctrination and started families
Eastern Germany had many thousand of Vietnamese immigrants. Socialist countries were very poor and had an abundance of workers they didn't have to import brown third worlders.
Joseph King
Thats the difference between theory and practice, in theory you got the Communist Internationale, with workers ruling paradises and borders are not needed anymore. Thats the ideal of the left, and thats what they still keep preaching today, because everything will be so much better. In reality you have total dictatorship by weird paranoid men with mustaches keeping their own people prisoner with their highly militarizes state and borders.
Angel Russell
Man, fully automated industry and 300 days of mandatory holiday would've been amazing.
Nathan Diaz
>hundreds of thousands
>Total population 40,000–70,000[1]
>not limited to the gommie period only
no
Charles Clark
>40,000–70,000[1]
Those are the ones that stayed and their mongrel kids you autistic commie tard.
>About 400,000 Africans studied in the former Soviet Union between the late 1950s and 1990.[3]
I have already proven to you that socialist countries didn't have a policy to stop immigration on the conrtary their goal was to abolish borders entirely. Also you are so stupid you don't even know that the Soviet Union was a multicultural multiracial state with hundreds of ethnicities languages and a very diverse population.
Tyler Collins
Russia was and is a multi-ethnical nation, while 40000 africans survived from the russian empire to today in russia, damn they sure did mass-import thirld-worlders
>muh commie if you weren't hopelessly blind you'd see that I already explained to you or whoever else that guck was that , it's your first day away from reddit and your first day on /pol/ so I understand
all you've "proven" so far is that during Russias existence 40000 africans have survived out of the current 143 million population, while current leftist nations in Europe imports that number monthly
Blake Nelson
at least thats the theory of internationalism. in reality, 0.1% africans don't make you an open and diverse country and neighter does a hard immigration policy. Internationalism and the end of nationalism was just another promise Communism failed to deliver.
Thomas Sanders
>communism is nationalistic I suppose we should tell this to shitloads of cultural heritages lost to communism.
Or the fact that the anthems most of these cunts sang was the internationale.
William Barnes
>Leftism is inherently nationalistic It's not, but it should be.
Only National Socialism can be the answer.
Hudson Long
>China 5 Nations, 1 Country.
The only favor to your angle is this: all Asian communists latched on to Gommunism as a nationalist movement. None of them- I repeat, none- was interested in muh internationale.
A big reason why the Sino-Soviet Split happened is because many in China saw Soviet Technocrats as White Colonialists 2.0. And that Soviet Meddling is just White Imperialism but from a different angle. Therefore they wanted none of it.
Brody Hall
Especially since it worked out so nicely the last time.
Luke Hernandez
National Socialists didn't bomb the country.
Ian Reed
No, they just bombed the rest of the world, the world retaliated and they where returned to ashes.
Levi Powell
>No, they just bombed the rest of the world Out of self-defence. But that's besides the point.
The point is that only National Socialism can provide a counter-weight to international capitalism.
Kevin Barnes
>tried that >horribly horribly failed >lets do it again Why can I tell that you where not the smartest kid in your class?
Jaxon Jenkins
Again: it failed for different reasons than the idea itself.
The 25 Points of National Socialism are fundamentally good.
Isaiah Campbell
...
Wyatt Rodriguez
Nationalism isn't for multiculti, it's monocultural, so if a nation loses many """cultures""", that's good
It died due to the same reason Gaddafi died, they attempted to establish their own economical system that wasn't dependent on the world elite
Noah Ramirez
> Leftism is inherently nationalistic How can someone say something so wrong so confidently?
Leftism is usually globalist in one way or another. It can be patriotic but it can never be nationalistic without turning into fascism, which sounds like what you are looking for.
Aiden Morgan
They were nationalistic until the turn of the century when they betrayed the working class for the static and unnecessary ideal of internationalism. Anyone with basic knowledge of modern political history knows that, people ITT are ignorant as fuck.
And also, national syndicalism>national socialism.
Leo Parker
>it can never be nationalistic Ireland, Scotland, Catalonia, Basque country and practically every anti-colonial movement ever would like a word with you.
Ryan Allen
Really makes me think
Nathan Anderson
Being anti-colonial does not = leftist. On the political spectrum those places dont grade very left except if you consider the IRA legitimate. Those places wanted independence on a nationalist pretense, so yeah they are nationalistic, but not leftist.
Mason Flores
>how come modern leftism is the complete opposite of what leftism used to be? Marxism and marxist concepts being misappropriated to try and destroy all European-derived societies.
Oliver Wilson
That's where the difference between theory and practice comes back in from the other side. As you said, the Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, but the function wasn't as simple as the form.
Russia, by and large, was not interested in being anything other than Russia, with dominion over some extra bits. They tried to get other "republics" in the Soviet Union to come around to the sort of borderless nationless raceless thing you're talking about-- and become Russian. Some people took them up on it, more did not.
Russia (for that's what it really was in all practicality) never really tried to absorb Poland or Czechoslovakia or Hungary, or take back Finland, and they wanted to work with Yugoslavia but not take it over (and Yugoslavia didn't want to play ball and be less about their borders despite being as ostensibly communist as the USSR).
Some of this is down to socialist dealings being used as a cover for centralized, undemocratic authoritarianism, but not all of it.
Mason Thompson
>>No, they just bombed the rest of the world >Out of self-defence. But that's besides the point. Poland literally dindu nuffin
Kayden Nelson
>Socialism >stateless society What the fuck are you on about?
Cameron Bell
What country ever called itself Communist? It was always "peoples republic", " socialist federation ", ...
All they had was a Communist party, which officially proclaimed, that their goal was "to bring about Communism".
I believe it was Chomsky who said, that the two main powers wanting to associate Communism with, e.g. the Soviet Union were the CPSU (with focus on egalitarian values, Peace, ...) and the USA (with focus on Russian totalitarianism and other horrors carried out by marxist-lenninist groups).
Matthew Allen
Because America does not have a left, you fucking moron.
