AOC Finally, Openly Calls Democrats Stand for Open-Borders

[Deleted member 88]

So that does mean I can move to Mexico or Saudi Arabia and get free healthcare and housing?

Or do only countries that are wealthy and western have to open their borders?

Honestly, having the political belief that no borders and a unified world is great is fine-but then why doesn’t it apply everywhere?

Someone from the US should be able to move to say Kenya, or the reverse.

Come to think of it, the only way a borders free world makes sense is if everyone is rich enough that migration doesn’t go in one direction.

Because if Africa and Latin America and what not had first world standards of living-most of them would not wish to get to Europe or the US.

Once the world gets that prosperous-then maybe we can have a conversation about the worth of borders.

 

[Cherico]

So that does mean I can move to Mexico or Saudi Arabia and get free healthcare and housing?

Or do only countries that are wealthy and western have to open their borders?

Honestly, having the political belief that no borders and a unified world is great is fine-but then why doesn’t it apply everywhere?

Someone from the US should be able to move to say Kenya, or the reverse.

Come to think of it, the only way a borders free world makes sense is if everyone is rich enough that migration doesn’t go in one direction.

Because if Africa and Latin America and what not had first world standards of living-most of them would not wish to get to Europe or the US.

Once the world gets that prosperous-then maybe we can have a conversation about the worth of borders.

The weird thing is that a country did try the open boarders give foriginors special treatment at the expense of locals thing. It happened under the direction of a man named Porfirio Díaz in mexico.

It didn't end well....

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The weird thing is that a country did try the open boarders give foriginors special treatment at the expense of locals thing. It happened under the direction of a man named Porfirio Díaz in mexico.

It didn't end well....

Let me guess, the Cartels started off or gained more power through it?

 

[gral]

Let me guess, the Cartels started off or gained more power through it?

The Cartels were posterior to that. What happened is that Porfirio Díaz with this and other attitudes set up the scenario for the Mexican Revolution.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The Cartels were posterior to that. What happened is that Porfirio Díaz with this and other attitudes set up the scenario for the Mexican Revolution.

A Revolution by the new migrants or people originally from within?

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

Obv you need one party who agrees with abolishing the state in order to progress within the state until its abolishment, please keep up

The problem is getting them to actually do it once they have the power to do so.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Real communism hasn’t been tried, my version will totally work.

Lord Invictus thought-its based on like a day of analysis and dialectic theory and stuff, it corrects and builds upon Trotskyism and uh ultra left Maoist anarchism And builds upon revolutionary praxis-I read some books in college so that means I’m the next Vladimir Lenin.

The state is on the way to being abolished. My theory says so.

(Sarc tag hopefully not needed).

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The problem is getting them to actually do it once they have the power to do so.

Don’t forget aside from just the party it depends on just how much or how insistent and how impatient the people are for it

If it takes too long and it’s just promises or having to wait through all the bureacracy, they would feel a need to cut down the time themselves

 

[gral]

A Revolution by the new migrants or people originally from within?

From the latter. Putting it in a rather short way, Porfirio Díaz was President of Mexico, and managed to get himself "reelected" from 1876 to 1910. The Porfiriato was a period of economic expansion and concentration of wealth and land(one of the ways the Díaz government screwed its citizens was by taking over the communal lands of the Mexican peasants and selling them to different favored groups - those communal lands officially didn't have, never have had, owners, you see). By 1910, those who got wealthy, but didn't have political power, managed to oust Díaz, and promptly fell into infighting... until the Mexican peasants decided that they had good reasons to revolt, and did so, transforming what had been a liberal urban middle/upper-class struggle for power into a generalized revolution.

The Mexican Revolution set up a power structure that has endured, with modifications, up till today - the PRI Party is the political party created by the winners of the Mexican Revolution, and has ruled Mexico almost uninterruptedly since then.

 

[Deleted member 88]

The most convincing argument I have seen is that the USSR failed because the revolution failed in Germany, and Russia being a poorly developed country without the high level of culture and industry meant that it was building from a broken base, and the isolation of the Revolution didn’t help.

Now who says this?

Trotskyites and people who idolize Rosa Luxembourg, you know who doesn’t say this?

Stalinists and Maoists.

I find these intra communist debates so fascinating-all the little sects have next to no self awareness and don’t seem to understand their arguments are inherently self serving.

But are somehow objectively meritorious.

 

[Jormungandr]

Going by layman knowledge, I think the reason why Communism took root in Russia so well was because it was so broken, and WW1 exacerbated it all/catalyzed it: you can blame the ruling classes and the Tzars for that in the late 19th/early 20th. The underlying appeals of this then-new philosophy... well, appealed to people who had been shit on.

If Russia had been a bit more stable the Tzars not so dickish to the population, I think it wouldn't have gained ground as much as it did -- perhaps to the point where the Revolution failed or never even ignited in the first place.

These days, outside of deluded Millennials who have First World Problems ("Monetary equality! Down with the rich!" they say as they record on their iPhones and attend 'prestigious' universities), deluded academics that typically poison said young Millennials in educational institutes, and "Old Skool Hold-Outs" from a bygone era, Communism has been pretty much debunked on a scale larger than anything but a small village's population.

 

[Jouaint]

Going by layman knowledge, I think the reason why Communism took root in Russia so well was because it was so broken, and WW1 exacerbated it all/catalyzed it: you can blame the ruling classes and the Tzars for that in the late 19th/early 20th. The underlying appeals of this then-new philosophy... well, appealed to people who had been shit on.

It doesn't hurt that the Germans helped Lenin both in getting back to Russia and giving the Bolsheviks aid during their Revolution, which frankly says a lot about some of the arguments' validity.

 

[StormEagle]

Going by layman knowledge, I think the reason why Communism took root in Russia so well was because it was so broken, and WW1 exacerbated it all/catalyzed it: you can blame the ruling classes and the Tzars for that in the late 19th/early 20th. The underlying appeals of this then-new philosophy... well, appealed to people who had been shit on.

If Russia had been a bit more stable the Tzars not so dickish to the population, I think it wouldn't have gained ground as much as it did -- perhaps to the point where the Revolution failed or never even ignited in the first place.

These days, outside of deluded Millennials who have First World Problems ("Monetary equality! Down with the rich!" they say as they record on their iPhones and attend 'prestigious' universities), deluded academics that typically poison said young Millennials in educational institutes, and "Old Skool Hold-Outs" from a bygone era, Communism has been pretty much debunked on a scale larger than anything but a small village's population.

I mean, Alexander II, Nicholas II’s grandfather, made many reforms. Most notably the emancipation of the serfs. The man was eventually blown up by a socialist for his trouble and his son, rather naturally, took a reactionary stance thereafter.

If the socialists had left well enough alone, it’s entirely possible that Alexander II could have made the transition from autocracy to some form of constitutional monarchy like Germany or Britain.

But Alexander III had no desire to continue his fathers reforms, even overturning some of them, and his grandson, if he even had the inclination for reform, didn’t have the competence to do so.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@StormEagle
Even if this stuff were publically available knowledge, you got the problem that most history taught in class and depicted in fiction is very abridged and simplified

 

[Deleted member 88]

I wouldn’t say that is entirely true.

Fear of socialist revolution was a very real thing even in more advanced European countries. Including Germany.

The issue with Russia was that there was less of any sort of political center ground-radicals or total reactionaries.

Given that the reactionaries were usually part of the hated and incompetent upper class-most of Russian society backed one revolutionary party or another(if not specifically the Bolsheviki).

Whereas in Germany or France or the UK-you had functioning parliaments and middle classes, channeling and diffusing discontent with things as a whole.

Of course the situation varied in other places. And of course there were times when countries like Germany or France in the late 19th and early 20th century may have gone red, or at least tried to anyway.

But fear of the “working masses” was a fixture of European(and well world politics really) since 1848 if not earlier.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

It doesn't hurt that the Germans helped Lenin both in getting back to Russia and giving the Bolsheviks aid during their Revolution, which frankly says a lot about some of the arguments' validity.

The plan was to bleed Russia dry and force them to pull back from the war to crush the communist terrorism.
Unfortunately Lenin was a better leader than expected.