Borders

[Capitalist Pig]

well if a prerequesite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

well if a prerequisite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.

That is not a pre-requisite. First, we must understand what socialism-communism really is, and why capitalism is not beneficial to mankind, and then, the rest would be understood completely. Nobody can practice medicine without medical knowledge, therefore, we cannot understand socialism without studying and understanding its basic principlesTo remove nationalism, the bourgeois ideology, and all the garbage that we learn from this society, it is not impossible, if we had done it, others peoples can do it, even more, there are peoples within certain religion who do not support nationalism and patriotism, and they are not socialistsSocialism is not an ideology, and it is not a bubble, the real bubble is the capitalist society which keeps us dreaming and basing our thinking on myth and false promises, it is society based on false principles, and it is unstable. Its real bubble are all the periodical crisis that it produces, and affect us constantly, they want us to live in a bubble, and they are many peoples living in that bubbleThey are nationalists, but they are not libertarian, on the contrary, nationalism keep workers tailgating their own real enemies against their own real allied. The real libertarian are the Anarchists who promotes a society  without the imposition of the state, and most nationalist worships the state apparatus, and trust that their ruling elites will resolve their own problems, that cannot  be called freedom, that is pure slavery.  The slaves adoring the masterThe real mob is the capitalist class, and they are the real minority, and they are  the one who is provoking war and violence, do we own any army ? Do we have control over the war machinery and the weapon production ?  The worst thing that is taking place around our world is that the majority of the workers are not thinking by themselves, they are echoes of the thinkings of their own class enemies. You are just repeating what the ruling class wants you to repeat.Through my whole life, I have never needed a leader to support myself, or to support my family. The only leader that I had when I was a child was my father  my mother, and my grandfather, and I am grateful to them. We do not have to provide allegiance to any country, or to any flag

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

well if a prerequesite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.

There are a number of serious misconceptions here which others have already touched on but I will focus on just one – the strange notion that there will be a "global vote on every issue in the world" in socialism.  I dont know where you got that idea from – maybe from our regular contributor, LBird? LOL – but I for one strongly dissent.  I imagine that democratic decision-making in a socialist society would be carried at out at several different scales organisation – local regional and global – depending very much on the issue to be resolved.  I strongly suspect that very few decisions would need to be taken at the global level and that the great bulk of them would be taken at the local level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.  Of course how you differentiate local from regional issues, say, is something that has to be resolved in practice, its not something that can be decided a apriori.  But as a general rule of thumb local issues are those that tend to have some significant impact on the lives of individuals within a particular locality rather than outsiders so the criterion of who gets to decide what depends on the degree of impact it has for the people concerned.  The citizens of a socialist Seattle, for example, are not going to be affected in any significant way by the decision of the citizens of socialist Singapore to re-site a new general hospital in downtown Singapore.  So it is quite right that only Singaporeans should get to vote on this particular issue which is what would happen in practice anyway, in my view As for your point about China and India with their massive populations outweighing other countries should it come to a global vote on matters of global importance well, as has been mentioned, the nation state would cease to exist in a socialist society.  The assumption behind your point seems to be that particular territorial units in a socialist society which you continue to see in national terns as having some kind of collective interests that separates each unit from every other  in terms of competing interest.  Meaning you are projecting into a future socialist society what happens under capitalism The whole point about socialism is that we living in a globally integrated and interdependent world in which the production of goods is a thoroughly socialised process spanning the entire globe.  That is what lies behind the very concept of socialism itself.  It is about bringing the social relations of production in line with the socialised character of modern prpduction which is global in scope

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

well if a prerequisite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.

That is not a pre-requisite. First, we must understand what socialism-communism really is, and why capitalism is not beneficial to mankind, and then, the rest would be understood completely. Nobody can practice medicine without medical knowledge, therefore, we cannot understand socialism without studying and understanding its basic principlesTo remove nationalism, the bourgeois ideology, and all the garbage that we learn from this society, it is not impossible, if we had done it, others peoples can do it, even more, there are peoples within certain religion who do not support nationalism and patriotism, and they are not socialistsSocialism is not an ideology, and it is not a bubble, the real bubble is the capitalist society which keeps us dreaming and basing our thinking on myth and false promises, it is society based on false principles, and it is unstable. Its real bubble are all the periodical crisis that it produces, and affect us constantly, they want us to live in a bubble, and they are many peoples living in that bubbleThey are nationalists, but they are not libertarian, on the contrary, nationalism keep workers tailgating their own real enemies against their own real allied. The real libertarian are the Anarchists who promotes a society  without the imposition of the state, and most nationalist worships the state apparatus, and trust that their ruling elites will resolve their own problems, that cannot  be called freedom, that is pure slavery.  The slaves adoring the masterThe real mob is the capitalist class, and they are the real minority, and they are  the one who is provoking war and violence, do we own any army ? Do we have control over the war machinery and the weapon production ?  The worst thing that is taking place around our world is that the majority of the workers are not thinking by themselves, they are echoes of the thinkings of their own class enemies. You are just repeating what the ruling class wants you to repeat.Through my whole life, I have never needed a leader to support myself, or to support my family. The only leader that I had when I was a child was my father  my mother, and my grandfather, and I am grateful to them. We do not have to provide allegiance to any country, or to any flag

I didn't ask you to explain what nationalism and socialism is to me, or give me a weird metaphor, or tell me that i can't think for myself and my views are due to the evil capitalist brainwashing, I made the point that most people would not even consider communism if it meant open borders and you refuse to accept this or make the exuse that they are just brainwashed and don't know whats best for them. I don't need you to tell me how to think I can come to conclusions myself thankyouverymuch.

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

well if a prerequesite for communism is the destruction of all national bounderies then I don't think the majority of the population will even consider it. You have to leave your ideological bubble and come to realize that is just not possible at the present time, espesially with the resergance of nationalistic and libertarian movements. The local people should have a say on who comes into their country and know what kind of people they are, if they hate the freedoms offered in the west and want to deminish them or if they want to embrace them. If they're was a global vote on every issue in the world who do you think would have the deciding vote? countries like China and India would out-weigh all the other countries thanks to their massive population. The local people should be the ones who are in control, it shouldn't be a dictatorship of the mob.

There are a number of serious misconceptions here which others have already touched on but I will focus on just one – the strange notion that there will be a "global vote on every issue in the world" in socialism.  I dont know where you got that idea from – maybe from our regular contributor, LBird? LOL – but I for one strongly dissent.  I imagine that democratic decision-making in a socialist society would be carried at out at several different scales organisation – local regional and global – depending very much on the issue to be resolved.  I strongly suspect that very few decisions would need to be taken at the global level and that the great bulk of them would be taken at the local level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.  Of course how you differentiate local from regional issues, say, is something that has to be resolved in practice, its not something that can be decided a apriori.  But as a general rule of thumb local issues are those that tend to have some significant impact on the lives of individuals within a particular locality rather than outsiders so the criterion of who gets to decide what depends on the degree of impact it has for the people concerned.  The citizens of a socialist Seattle, for example, are not going to be affected in any significant way by the decision of the citizens of socialist Singapore to re-site a new general hospital in downtown Singapore.  So it is quite right that only Singaporeans should get to vote on this particular issue which is what would happen in practice anyway, in my view As for your point about China and India with their massive populations outweighing other countries should it come to a global vote on matters of global importance well, as has been mentioned, the nation state would cease to exist in a socialist society.  The assumption behind your point seems to be that particular territorial units in a socialist society which you continue to see in national terns as having some kind of collective interests that separates each unit from every other  in terms of competing interest.  Meaning you are projecting into a future socialist society what happens under capitalism The whole point about socialism is that we living in a globally integrated and interdependent world in which the production of goods is a thoroughly socialised process spanning the entire globe.  That is what lies behind the very concept of socialism itself.  It is about bringing the social relations of production in line with the socialised character of modern prpduction which is global in scope

I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.

I understand the point you are getting at when you say you don’t “want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny”. It is a point I have made myself.  There is a balance to be struck between “democracy” and the “freedom” of individuals to choose.  But, rememeber, this freedom to choose applies also to the question of travel and where you want to live I think the point that is being made is that the very existence of “borders” implies the continuation of that core generic institution of capitalism – the nation state.  This is why I have problems with your statement – “open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism”. Open or closed it still seems to imply the existence of the nation state which is incompatible with the existence of communism.  Also the word “prerequisite” is somewhat misleading.  A prerequisite is a “thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist”.  “Open borders” is not in that sense a prerequisite of communism though mass communist consciousness certainly is.  Mass communist consciousness entails amongst other things a repudiation of the ideology of nationalism that sustains the very existence of the nation-state. As I suggested in my earlier post democracy in a communist (aka socialist) society would be a multi-level phenomenon – local regional and global. Obviously, this entails the existence of distinct spatial cum administrative entities and you can’t have such an entity without it being spatially bounded – that is to say, having boundaries that demarcate and differentiate one such entity from another.  I prefer the term boundary than border since the latter seems to have statist connotations I have no problem with the idea of the free flow of people across these boundaries in a communist world and I don’t quite see why you think it is such an important issue.  You say borders “might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests”.  Well then other than to demarcate a particular administrative entity within which a particular level of democratic decision making is effected what possible reason would there be for such “borders”. I think at the root of your preoccupation with “borders” is the worry that should borders disappear there will be some huge influx of people into a particular part of the world e.g. Europe which will overwhelm its economic support structures and undermine its sense of cultural identity.  I do not believe there is any basis for concern at all.  You have to ask yourself why is it that people migrate today.  In the main it is for political and economic reasons – war and the prospect of seeking employment.  These factors will disappear come a communist society.  If anything there is likely to be far less in the way of wholesale migration in the sense of people uprooting themselves from one part of the world and relocating elsewhere.   Of course people will still travel and visit other parts of the world and this is a good thing.  Cultural diversity is something that needs to be nurtured, fostered and above all experienced and I am all for it.  Variety is the spice of life and one of the many insidious effects of capitalism is its tendency to create a dreary monoculture everywhere.  World cities are more and more starting resemble each other with the same predictable array of corporate chains setting up business in them  – the "McDonaldization" of global society which is an expression coined  by the sociologist George Ritzer in his 1993 book on the subject. 

[ALB]

Isn't Capitalist Pig writing from the USA (I could be wrong on this), where there are no borders from one side of the Continent to the other? And isn't the USA famously " a nation of immigrants"?

[Young Master Smeet]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.

Freedom of association is one thing, as is freedom of movement, and freedom of expression.  But it can't be common ownership of the world if we have regional owners: but common ownership means common: so not section of the world can dictate in such a way as to effectively deprive another of their share: teh free development of each should be the condition for the free developmen of all.  Democracy within common ownership has to be practised in such a way as to support, nurture and continue common ownership.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Isn't Capitalist Pig writing from the USA (I could be wrong on this), where there are no borders from one side of the Continent to the other? And isn't the USA famously " a nation of immigrants"?

The first immigrants were the Puritans who stole the land from the natives, and then the six colonies stole the land from the Mexicans and the Aztlans. The Indians have been fighting terrorism, and against land robbers since 1492. The Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty said that the Mexicans were allowed to go in and out anytime they wanted. The first enemies of the USA were the indians. Thru history they have always needed an external enemy, and poiliticians have always won the elections based on xenofophia, and blaming the internal problems on foreign enemies. The concept of class struggles, amd class division have been eliminated completely from the books of history

[Anonymous]

The borders of the USA are extended toward Latin America which is its toilet and backyardThere were towns in Latin America habitated by Americans where nationals were not allowed to go inside without permission The company towns that existed in the Caribbean were carbon copy of the black ghetoes of the south of the usaPuerto Rico and guantanamo were millitary bases used to invade others countriesThe German nazis would envy the school of tortures of Panama foundedby the cia and in Santo domingo they had a center of tortures to impose their extended borders Obama is talking about Russians hacking but the cia has a long history ofelections hacking in Latin America. They would obtain all the. GrammiesRonald reagan was a president for 8 years and he made alliances with Pablo Escobar and the Colombian drug dealers and the money used used to finance terroristsSome people's in this world are parrots and others have studied world history 

[Anonymous]

The Western Capitalists and the US capitalist spent more than 50 years talking about the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain, the division between the free world and the non free world,  and now everybody want to build their own wall for protectionism like in the old days before world world one. Israel has its own wall against the Palestinian, and in Eastern Europe they want to build another wall. The Russians said that they can provide the bricks

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.

I understand the point you are getting at when you say you don’t “want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny”. It is a point I have made myself.  There is a balance to be struck between “democracy” and the “freedom” of individuals to choose.  But, rememeber, this freedom to choose applies also to the question of travel and where you want to live I think the point that is being made is that the very existence of “borders” implies the continuation of that core generic institution of capitalism – the nation state.  This is why I have problems with your statement – “open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism”. Open or closed it still seems to imply the existence of the nation state which is incompatible with the existence of communism.  Also the word “prerequisite” is somewhat misleading.  A prerequisite is a “thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist”.  “Open borders” is not in that sense a prerequisite of communism though mass communist consciousness certainly is.  Mass communist consciousness entails amongst other things a repudiation of the ideology of nationalism that sustains the very existence of the nation-state. As I suggested in my earlier post democracy in a communist (aka socialist) society would be a multi-level phenomenon – local regional and global. Obviously, this entails the existence of distinct spatial cum administrative entities and you can’t have such an entity without it being spatially bounded – that is to say, having boundaries that demarcate and differentiate one such entity from another.  I prefer the term boundary than border since the latter seems to have statist connotations I have no problem with the idea of the free flow of people across these boundaries in a communist world and I don’t quite see why you think it is such an important issue.  You say borders “might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests”.  Well then other than to demarcate a particular administrative entity within which a particular level of democratic decision making is effected what possible reason would there be for such “borders”. I think at the root of your preoccupation with “borders” is the worry that should borders disappear there will be some huge influx of people into a particular part of the world e.g. Europe which will overwhelm its economic support structures and undermine its sense of cultural identity.  I do not believe there is any basis for concern at all.  You have to ask yourself why is it that people migrate today.  In the main it is for political and economic reasons – war and the prospect of seeking employment.  These factors will disappear come a communist society.  If anything there is likely to be far less in the way of wholesale migration in the sense of people uprooting themselves from one part of the world and relocating elsewhere.   Of course people will still travel and visit other parts of the world and this is a good thing.  Cultural diversity is something that needs to be nurtured, fostered and above all experienced and I am all for it.  Variety is the spice of life and one of the many insidious effects of capitalism is its tendency to create a dreary monoculture everywhere.  World cities are more and more starting resemble each other with the same predictable array of corporate chains setting up business in them  – the "McDonaldization" of global society which is an expression coined  by the sociologist George Ritzer in his 1993 book on the subject. 

welp we will see, I just don't see it happening in my lifetime because of radical islam. But I do think people should have the right to control immigration into their country, land, whatever.

[Capitalist Pig]

ALB wrote:

Isn't Capitalist Pig writing from the USA (I could be wrong on this), where there are no borders from one side of the Continent to the other? And isn't the USA famously " a nation of immigrants"?

there is a difference between immigrating legally and illegally. Open borders is a whole other story.

[Capitalist Pig]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I hope that what your saying is true, I just don't want communism to become a complete democracy which is tyranny. Borders might not exist, but they might exist in communism but most likely not due to competing economic interests. I am just saying that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to allow open borders. There should be no group of people with the 'best' understanding of communism that decides what laws are implemented, that would be a bureaucracy.my point is that open borders shouldn't be said to be a prerequisite to communism, because its not.

Freedom of association is one thing, as is freedom of movement, and freedom of expression.  But it can't be common ownership of the world if we have regional owners: but common ownership means common: so not section of the world can dictate in such a way as to effectively deprive another of their share: teh free development of each should be the condition for the free developmen of all.  Democracy within common ownership has to be practised in such a way as to support, nurture and continue common ownership.

what about the rights of the local people to know who is coming into their town or city? their rights do not matter if the majority thinks otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

irwellian wrote:

Who is this "we" you are talking about? The British government? The capitalist class? The workers? As for "destroying the country"… whose country exactly? Theresa May's? Richard Brandon's? The guy who owns Sports Direct? The workers have no country.

The concept of WE in this case is known as class conciliation. The workers do not share equal interest with their own masters

[Author]

Posts