/lit/ - Literature

>>17906435
You mean like the left has since the '60s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left

>Nononono you can't criticize the open immigration legislation that the capitalists lobbied for!!!! Let them have it bro we don't care about the bourgeoisie bringing in potentially hundreds of millions of scab laborers, from a limitless supply in third world countries with nonexistent class consciousness!!!
>Dude you're focusing on the wrong enemy, your enemy is not the billions of scabs being brought in to dilute your vote and destroy your bargaining power!!!!! Mexican scab workers are workers too, so they're our ally!!
>NONONONO BRO DON'T MENTION IMMIGRATION BRO THAT'S A RIGHT WING TALKING POINT, REMEMBER WE ARE LEFT WING, LEFT WING, THAT MEANS WHEN THE CAPITALISTS LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPORT TRILLIONS OF SCABS WE LOOK THE OTHER WAY BECAUSE TODAY'S SCABS ARE TOMORROW'S REVOLUTIONARIES!!!

Great strategy, it's working so far comrade!

>>16106436
Source? That's awesome

But yeah anyone actually reading Marx knows he would
>1- see current mass immigration as politically motivated, to dilute and confuse worker solidarity (see pic related)
>2- see it as utterly deadly to the possibility of a workers' movement and therefore a communist revolution
>3- therefore want to break up the structure of "mass immigration" by any means necessary, as soon as possible
>4- see removing political actors behind it as the simplest initial move
>5- see nationalism as the quickest way to do that
>6- see a reversion to "bourgeois" national sovereignty/solidarity (aka nationalism) as a precondition to restoring national workers' movements back to the level they were at during his day
>7- see this as the necessary precondition of starting up communism again, as he tried to do in his day

Anyone who denies this is a crypto-liberal pseudo-communist who wants to keep all the rhetoric and associations of Marxism but not actually follow through on his plans. Marx did not even see bourgeois society as some simplistic "evil." He saw it (and the conditions it brought) as a necessary stage before the true revolution of the working class, because it was was where the oppression and alienation of the worker, as worker and thus as a function of wage-labor and capital, would reach its peak of severity.

THAT is what triggers the revolution, not vague liberal longings for "fairness" or "charity." The latter are precisely what is to be feared, because they are bourgeois tricks for convincing people that something SHORT OF A WORKERS' REVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE. It's a way of saying "oh can we postpone/cancel the revolution if we're just a little nicer? Here, let's try this and this instead.. Just give it another five years and let's see what happens."

Bam, five years goes by, and what did that niceness get you? The ideologist who sold you the lie of waiting another five years, using his fancy education purchased with his capitalist father's money accumulated from collecting rent from your fellow workers, bought his capitalist father enough time to import enough third world immigrants to dilute the vote, degrade class consciousness, and prevent strikes by having an infinite supply of scabs.

But now he starts guilt tripping you about how you're an evil monster for wanting to send these poor brown people back to their shit countries (where he owns a factory, and where there used to be revolutionary potential too, but now all the angry young men fled to greener pastures and the country is a stagnant post-colonial hellhole... hmmm). Now even more people who were "on the fence" about workers' rights are siding with him, out of their own good nature and charitable instincts, and agreeing you must be a monster if you want to be harsh on immigration.

What's the solution? Try again to convince them back to your side? But the rich guy has the fancy education, and the leisure time to outmaneuver you indefinitely. You lose.