Some loser from the daily beast emailed me last week regarding my thoughts on open borders. I have no intention of responding to his email, but here are my rough and ready thoughts on the matter. Law enforcement agencies, of every kind, are created, funded and armed by capitalist states, to enact the political agenda of it's ruling class. Although the specifics of that ruling class agenda, and the coercive methods by which it is enacted, vary considerably across different nation states in different historic conjunctures, their function, always and everywhere, is to secure the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie can continue to accumulate capital, by furthering the exploitation of the international proletariat.
This is the exact argument that the British left should have taken up in 2016 with regards to "freedom of movement" in the European Union, that it has only ever functioned as a means for European capital to exploit migrant labour from Southern and ex-Soviet European countries. Failing to do so ceded ground both to the right (for whom freedom of movement was always rejected on anti-migrant grounds) and the remainers (who still maintain an idealised picture of the EU as an enlightened pro-migrant polity, despite evidence to the contrary).
"Every single undocumented American who has resided in the country for 5+ years and has a clean criminal record should immediately be provided with a straightforward pathway to citizenship, this would reduce the extent to which employers are able to pit working people against each other along nationalist lines..." This is very good. Conservative voters have been punching down at near-slaves and indentured servants rather than punching up at the employers who are drawing them in.
I really appreciate this take. Neocons and liberals BOTH dehumanize immigrants. Neocons portray them as undeserving cretins and criminals foaming at the mouth just waiting to take the jobs of American citizens. Liberals portray immigrants as exotic/angelic capital-v Victims worthy of pity and charity but, umm, yeah, do they have to move to *my* neighborhood...? No, immigrants are people, which means they are capable of both the best and the worst of human behavior. There needs to be an acknowledgement of economic and other (*cough* drug war *cough*) forces that make immigration--including illegal immigration--to the US logical and necessary for many people from Latin America. At the same time, we must acknowledge that "open borders" is a bad joke and a large, easily-exploitable immigrant population is bad for US labor.
Nationalism and socialism have a much more complicated relationship than what is presented here. We ought to remember that 'socialism' is split, is self-contradictory, as in it can lead equally to either one of two outcomes: progress or regression. It's split right down the middle at the core of the problem it's trying to deal with, which is the self-contradiction of modern freedom. The nation was originally a vehicle for realizing this freedom. It of course become contradictory in that the very systems erected for liberty ended up restricting the liberty that industrial relations of production portended. Internationalism is a great and noble goal, but without some more concrete steps along the way, it will always remain a painful abstraction too remote to positively impact the working class. Without a means of mediating the internal contradiction of socialism, that between its local and international aspirations, its conservatism and its progressivism, then such remarks fall flat. I'll be the first to admit that I'm at the limits of my own cognizance of the problem, though that is enough to realize how a position like this one unfortunately feeds right back into a capitalism that would be equally as comfortable leaving the Westphalian system behind as it would be retrenching it all the more.
You have no clue what American workers want or do. Please go outside and get a job.
This is the exact argument that the British left should have taken up in 2016 with regards to "freedom of movement" in the European Union, that it has only ever functioned as a means for European capital to exploit migrant labour from Southern and ex-Soviet European countries. Failing to do so ceded ground both to the right (for whom freedom of movement was always rejected on anti-migrant grounds) and the remainers (who still maintain an idealised picture of the EU as an enlightened pro-migrant polity, despite evidence to the contrary).
"Every single undocumented American who has resided in the country for 5+ years and has a clean criminal record should immediately be provided with a straightforward pathway to citizenship, this would reduce the extent to which employers are able to pit working people against each other along nationalist lines..." This is very good. Conservative voters have been punching down at near-slaves and indentured servants rather than punching up at the employers who are drawing them in.
Why won’t you have Freddy on your podcast? Is it because you’re scared?
I really appreciate this take. Neocons and liberals BOTH dehumanize immigrants. Neocons portray them as undeserving cretins and criminals foaming at the mouth just waiting to take the jobs of American citizens. Liberals portray immigrants as exotic/angelic capital-v Victims worthy of pity and charity but, umm, yeah, do they have to move to *my* neighborhood...? No, immigrants are people, which means they are capable of both the best and the worst of human behavior. There needs to be an acknowledgement of economic and other (*cough* drug war *cough*) forces that make immigration--including illegal immigration--to the US logical and necessary for many people from Latin America. At the same time, we must acknowledge that "open borders" is a bad joke and a large, easily-exploitable immigrant population is bad for US labor.
Totally irrelevant without Jack's right-wing echo world...
Try joining Telegram and dancing for Putin more directly, Aimee!
I mean, this is the medium where you belong, totally ignored... but if you need the attention, you can always go to daddy Vladdy.
Nationalism and socialism have a much more complicated relationship than what is presented here. We ought to remember that 'socialism' is split, is self-contradictory, as in it can lead equally to either one of two outcomes: progress or regression. It's split right down the middle at the core of the problem it's trying to deal with, which is the self-contradiction of modern freedom. The nation was originally a vehicle for realizing this freedom. It of course become contradictory in that the very systems erected for liberty ended up restricting the liberty that industrial relations of production portended. Internationalism is a great and noble goal, but without some more concrete steps along the way, it will always remain a painful abstraction too remote to positively impact the working class. Without a means of mediating the internal contradiction of socialism, that between its local and international aspirations, its conservatism and its progressivism, then such remarks fall flat. I'll be the first to admit that I'm at the limits of my own cognizance of the problem, though that is enough to realize how a position like this one unfortunately feeds right back into a capitalism that would be equally as comfortable leaving the Westphalian system behind as it would be retrenching it all the more.