[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 4096



File: 1484175151224.png (981 KB, 201x300, liberals.jpg)

No.4096

Why do the right wing miss the point so hard when they focus on problems in society?

Lets take immigrants for example.

>immigrants are putting strain on our infrastructure, we don't have enough money for them


So, when looking for more money in the country, you want to attack a part of the population that not only gives more back to the economy than it takes in taxes, but all the while doing so while corporations making more money than probably all immigrants put together are paying next to no tax, and the current government is ok with that because most people in the government are doing it too?

>immigrants are taking our jobs and lowering our wages


This is actually a good point, but it fails to see the bigger picture. The only reason immigrants are able to 'steal the jobs' is because of market competition - they come from worse backgrounds and therefore are willing to work less than you. You should not be mad at the immigrant with no power, but rather the system that rewards thoes who pay their employees the lowest amount possible. Having a society based around the profit incentive makes no sense to begin with.

>there are too many immigrants


This is again true, but it never goes further to ask WHY there are so many. The right almost assumes that they just decided one day to leave their homes and communities and cultures for no reason. It's because external intervention has fucked their homes to the point where they're not livable. Not much can be done about this now, Imperialism must reap what it sows.

>immigrants are destroying our culture


It's clear that anyone who says this has no idea how culture works. Obviously some cultures simply are higher quality than others, but WHY are they? Culture is formed by an economic basis, so the stronger the economic and political basis of a society, the richer it's culture. All of the great cultures we think of today originated from societies with a large surplus of resources and stable economic lives, without that there can be no culture.

Therefore, focusing on outside culture changing ours today is pointless and attacks the problem from the wrong end. What must be done is focus on the economic standards of living for all thoes in society, and high quality culture will naturally arise out of that. It's dialectical.

Even if it's 'different', as long as the economic base is there it will inherently be rich, so the only thing in the way would be your fear of change for the sake of it.

And this is just one topic. The right consistently fails to see past very specific areas of society, or attacks the symptoms of a problem without looking at it's root causes.

What do I propose? In short, democratic ownership of factories and general work places by the workers themselves, as well as moving to use-based resource allocation, rather than profit based. This will solve a great deal of our problems, in culture, economics and politics.

  No.4097

>Why do the right wing miss the point so hard when they focus on problems in society?
I try not to categorize myself, especially when there's only three options for such a complicated topic.

>So, when looking for more money in the country, you want to attack a part of the population that not only gives more back to the economy than it takes in taxes

I don't believe this is true. I've read a great deal that claims the opposite. Rather than both of us cite conflicting sources, I'll primarily argue against your next point.
>but all the while doing so while corporations making more money than probably all immigrants put together are paying next to no tax, and the current government is ok with that because most people in the government are doing it too?
This is certainly an issue. We continually see governments waiving fees to large corporations and even giving them money, but aren't those corporations meant to benefit the area with the prosperity they supposedly bring? Corporations also hire these illegal immigrants, which exacerbates the issue.

>This is actually a good point, but it fails to see the bigger picture. The only reason immigrants are able to 'steal the jobs' is because of market competition - they come from worse backgrounds and therefore are willing to work less than you. You should not be mad at the immigrant with no power, but rather the system that rewards thoes who pay their employees the lowest amount possible. Having a society based around the profit incentive makes no sense to begin with.

This is a fair point. Large corporations regularly undercut minimum wage with illegals. All of it should be stopped.

>This is again true, but it never goes further to ask WHY there are so many. The right almost assumes that they just decided one day to leave their homes and communities and cultures for no reason. It's because external intervention has fucked their homes to the point where they're not livable. Not much can be done about this now, Imperialism must reap what it sows.

I don't care about this.

>It's clear that anyone who says this has no idea how culture works. Obviously some cultures simply are higher quality than others, but WHY are they? Culture is formed by an economic basis, so the stronger the economic and political basis of a society, the richer it's culture. All of the great cultures we think of today originated from societies with a large surplus of resources and stable economic lives, without that there can be no culture.

It doesn't seem that a point is being made here.

>Therefore, focusing on outside culture changing ours today is pointless and attacks the problem from the wrong end. What must be done is focus on the economic standards of living for all thoes in society, and high quality culture will naturally arise out of that. It's dialectical.

I agree. Those lowering the value of society, such as illegal immigrants, should be removed.

>What do I propose? In short, democratic ownership of factories and general work places by the workers themselves, as well as moving to use-based resource allocation, rather than profit based. This will solve a great deal of our problems, in culture, economics and politics.

Syndicalism is a nice idea.
I prefer an idea that can be perhaps poorly summed as "The most capable in a society should rule." This can be labelled as meritocracy, authoritarianism, fascism, or totalitarianism, whichever you prefer.

  No.4098

With regards to the they-took-our-jobs thing in the US, there is a dimension to that issue that doesn't get mentioned very often. Namely that through the fact that these people are residing in that country illegally, they are more attractive employees, as the employer doesn't have to pay them minimum wage, or certain taxes and laws don't apply to them etc. since they're not orderly citizens or registered in any other fashion, so the labor is not legal in the first place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreported_employment). But the laws apply to orderly citizens, who have no means of dogding them (you're not allowed to work under minimum wage). So there's a systemic flaw (it's a flaw even if we accept the premise of a profit-incentive society), and it's entirely legitimate for the shafted parts of the population to be angry about this.
How exactly a wall or mass deportations are a solution to this issue I've no clue (because they probably aren't). But it's not like anybody on the other side of the spectrum ever addresses the issue.

As to the culture thing, I again think it's an entirely legitimate desire not wanting to accept people in our societies who show no signs of understanding, respecting let alone adopting the customs of the place they are at _during interaction with the supposed "natives"_. Do what you want inside your communities (to the extent the law allows it to you, as you are part of the common demos). I write this because of a series of interactions I observed at a post office a few days ago with people who were clearly non-natives who didn't exactly show the kind of manners the person behind the counter maybe would have wished and expected of a native resident of this country. For reference, this is in switzerland.
On the other hand, there's no reason to put those without full citizenship under any more or less scrutiny than those with citizenship. Just please don't be dicks for no reason, everybody.

  No.4100

File: 1484178135930.png (186.4 KB, 200x196, 1469073297470-0.png)

Here's something I should of put in the OP btw, it's a great watch, and may surprise you to hear it comes from a staunch Marxist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EYxqocgk9g

>>4097
>I don't believe this is true. I've read a great deal that claims the opposite. Rather than both of us cite conflicting sources, I'll primarily argue against your next point.

Maybe it depends on the country - in the UK I'm fairly sure it's agreed more or less they do.

>but aren't those corporations meant to benefit the area with the prosperity they supposedly bring?


This moves onto a very different topic, to keep the thread on topic for now I wont give my full analysis but in short no, this isnt really how it ends up working. If you really want my view here let me know.

>Corporations also hire these illegal immigrants, which exacerbates the issue.


Yes exactly. This is the point I was making in the next part of the OP - it's the fact there's an incentive to employ them in the first place that is the problem, and the root of many others in society.

>It doesn't seem that a point is being made here.


It set up the argument for the next bit, sorry if that wasnt very clear.

>Those lowering the value of society, such as illegal immigrants, should be removed.


You see you're missing the point here. They are only lowering the value of society, much like a lot of black communities for example, because their material and economic conditions are so poor. If we alleviated these problems, the rest would sort its self out, as at the end of the day people's behavior are molded by their material conditions. We very much have the resources to give everyone not only in say the US but the whole whole a decent standard of living, but our current economic system does not accommodate this.

>Syndicalism is a nice idea.


Personally I'm more of a Socialist than a Syndicalist - Syndicalism tends to be more anarchistic, and I consider anarchists extremely utopian, in the philosophical sense.

>I prefer an idea that can be perhaps poorly summed as "The most capable in a society should rule."


I have a question then, how do you determine who is the most capable of something? Why not construct a system in which thoes most 'capable' naturally rise to important positions without anything being needed to prop them up, like Socialism?

>>4098
>Namely that through the fact that these people are residing in that country illegally, they are more attractive employees

Yea I addressed this briefly in my OP but you've definitely expanded on it a lot more. Like I said though, this is a problem of the way our system is structured in the first place. There shouldn't be an incentive to keep people as poor as possible.

>As to the culture thing, I again think it's an entirely legitimate desire not wanting to accept people in our societies who show no signs of understanding


I agree, I think the video I put at the top of this post is very relevant to what you were saying here. Basically, you don't need to be full on multicultural 'immigrants can do no wrong' to actually have immigrants and refugees in your country. Separation can be a good thing.

  No.4102

>>4100
I've got to sleep now if anyone replies and wonders why I don't reply. Will by tomorrow.

  No.4103

>>4100
Zizek gets things really well IMO.

  No.4108

I'll rant specifically about Europe:

It is my opinion that multiculturalism, as an idea, relies on the concept of cultural relativity - that cultures are never superior or inferior, just different. As a result. respect and sanctuary are granted for cultures (that are foreign to the west) in our own lands, and prosecution is only provided against our own culture as 'xenophobia' is a word so easily applied without base.

In addition, I reason that not all cultures are able to coexist so closely. For example, the birth of the US, hailed as a multicultural haven, was the result of exclusively European cultures working together, in which Germanic, Scandie, Eastern European, Hispanic cultures are similar enough that coexistence was possible and the preceding 500 years of close-proximity trade certainly helped. In contrast, in European cities such as Cologne and Malmo, the native culture meets friction with the encroaching north-African and middle-eastern religions, producing sexual assault and rape at a rate directly associated with inbound migration from these areas. This suggests that a multiple-culture does not coexist as smoothly as the concept of relativity would imply.

Perhaps the issue with multiculturalism, as far as I see, is not so much that our culture is being diluted, but more that our culture is not able to cohesively exist with the culture of the ingress (Of which there is a vast amount), and that the result of which is skyrocketing rape and sexual abuse alongside radical changes in population for our metropolitan areas.

With regards to the sheer numbers of migrants, consider that immigration to the UK before 1997 was about 30k per year, and that for every year afterwards it has been over 300k, now way over. There was a point in the early turn of this century, when migration into Europe was accelerated. The societal result is irrelevant to the fact that it still occurred.

What leftists fail to realise is that the right is as much to blame as the left with regards to this dangerous levels of migration. The powerful economic right use their influence in politics to open borders for cheap labour, as the powerful social left use their influence to 'attempt' a dilution of culture in an effort of grand Marxism. Therefore, I do not believe this is a LEFT / RIGHT issue, so much as it is an establishment (European Union) vs the people issue - sounds kinda socialist-y doesn't it?

I consider myself a centrist, and have been indifferent towards immigration for the past decade, but the current rate and effects of our migration policy (UK), as it existed in the 90s (effectively open border), are now being considered responsibly. Eastern European migration eviscerated our economy, but our culture was unaffected. Middle-Eastern migration dented our economy, and our metropolitan areas became dangerous zones for the native Anglo. Two migration waves with two different results regarding culture.

Spend my 2c as you wish.

  No.4110

>>4100
>They are only lowering the value of society, much like a lot of black communities for example, because their material and economic conditions are so poor.

I'll point out that the foundations of of modern music -- jazz, blues, hip-hop, techno -- all these genres came out of poor black American communities. Not to mention many other forms of art and literature. Just because a community is economically poor doesn't mean it is not adding value to society.

  No.4118

>>4108
>In contrast, in European cities such as Cologne and Malmo, the native culture meets friction with the encroaching north-African and middle-eastern religions, producing sexual assault and rape at a rate directly associated with inbound migration from these areas. This suggests that a multiple-culture does not coexist as smoothly as the concept of relativity would imply.

I would point out here that at least in the USA, this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. In fact, domestic populations seem to convert crime at a higher rate than immigrants do. While middle eastern and north african migrants seem to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, assuming such studies are correct and unbiased, we don't see the same correlation in the USA. Illegal migrants from Mexico commit crime at a lower rate than Mexican-American citizens do. And despite the WTC attacks and other incidents like the shooting in Orlando and the Boston Bombing, the general crime rate among Muslim youth in the United States is very low. If anything, you're more likely to be stabbed bythe average black guy who was born and raised in America than the average Nigerian Muslim or Christian immigrant.

In Europe, I think there is something similar where the older migrants who either have recently gone there or who settled in places like France as part of a work force or overseas study program in the 1960's or 70's are not really known for as much crime as their kids or grandkids or the younger recently arrived refugees and are more assimilated for lack of a better term.

>Perhaps the issue with multiculturalism, as far as I see, is not so much that our culture is being diluted, but more that our culture is not able to cohesively exist with the culture of the ingress (Of which there is a vast amount), and that the result of which is skyrocketing rape and sexual abuse alongside radical changes in population for our metropolitan areas.


Culture clash does probably play some role, but I think it's overstated by many commentators who are looking for some explanation, or any explanation, for the phenomenon they are witnessing so they fall back on Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilization that creates a sharp dualistic, almost cosmic, conflict between the Muslim Near East and the Christian West. But if that were the case, why is it that so many of the north african and middle eastern migrants that come to the USA are so happy to be "American" and as I mentioned do not display the same signs of alienation or radicalism at the rate that their European counterparts do. Recent studies of American Muslim communities done by such sites like the Pew Forum have found for instance that American Muslims generally do not see a huge conflict between their religion and their identity as American citizens. This is funny considering how much Americans, much like European countries, placed a strong emphasis on their white and Christian character, even denying the rights of non-white and non-protestant groups in the name of racial or national purity. You would think that we'd see the same results in America that we see in Europe if this were the case, but we really don't. Also again, both in Europe and America, it is usually the younger generations of Muslims in Europe, many of whom have only ever known European society who more often than not tend towards radicalism and violence. This isn't to say that recent migrants don't do crimes, but at least in a place like the UK, my impression is that most of these young Pakistani kids who want to travel to do jihad for ISIS or forming gangs in London are too young to even remember what Pakistan was like, and a lot of them drink, fight, smoke weed, listen to rap music and then suddenly find God from some street corner mufti and leave their migrant parents house to go live in the mosque before shipping themselves off to some part of the middle east

  No.4119

>>4108
trying to stop cultural change is kind of like shooting at the sun to make it go away, except with the possibility that something goes horribly wrong and you end up committing genocide.

>Therefore, I do not believe this is a LEFT / RIGHT issue, so much as it is an establishment (European Union) vs the people issue - sounds kinda socialist-y doesn't it?


kind of, except most European people I know are pretty pro-immigration, or at least ambivalent. That is regardless of political views.

  No.4120

>>4119

well, despite the memes, the average European is probably unaffected by the migrants who are usually only found concentrated in the larger European cities.

  No.4131

>>4110
This is a very good point. What I was trying to get across was increase in violence, and culture reflecting violence (rap music for example) always forms from turbulent economic conditions. A lot of people just assume it's inherent to black people, when white or even asian people would act the exact same way when in thoes conditions for generations.

>>4108
>as the powerful social left use their influence to 'attempt' a dilution of culture in an effort of grand Marxism

I had to pick this out from your post. Marxism has nothing to do with culture, what you're describing are liberals. See the OP in the pic. If you watch the video in >>4100 you will actually see a Marxist against multiculturalism.

  No.4138

>>4131
>Marxism has nothing to do with culture, what you're describing are liberals.

I think I was being a tad generic when I wrote that, and in this regard you are correct. Marxism, in it's pure form, is 'probably' fine, especially Žižek's perspective. However, I still subscribe to the idea that there may still be an effort to dilute culture via migration.

I also agree that the leftist ideal has been so perverted by the contemporary progressive that most left-wing parties in Europe have adopted a policy towards open-borders regardless of whether it is necessary or not. I have good friends in London that are academic Marxists - staunch left - and even they know that open-borders is not a solution to our current problems, and is certainly not an ideal tied to the leftist train of thought.

The trouble with places like p.o.l is they clump the left in with the contemporary progressives, and assume therein that self-hate and degeneracy is their only worldview.

  No.4139

>>4138
I think open borders would be perfectly fine if our society was structured in the correct way - we have the ability to accommodate for all these refugees with next to do cultural friction but it's not profitable.

  No.4142

At least in the US, the entirety of the immigration debate centers completely on illegal immigration. Anyone who thinks differently is, in my professional opinion, a moron. Illegal immigrants are far greater trouble than they are worth and absolutely impact the overall quality of life for middle class Americans in a negative way.

Of course, that doesn't stop disingenuous leftists from using legal immigrants as a political tool. Legal immigrants to the US were led to believe that Trump intended to deport them, which is an utter fabrication that some of them continue to believe.

  No.4143

>>4142
Even illegals though, the only reason they're a problem in the first place is because of Capitalism and market forces.

  No.4144

>>4100
>This moves onto a very different topic, to keep the thread on topic for now I wont give my full analysis but in short no, this isnt really how it ends up working. If you really want my view here let me know.
I was being sarcastic. Any company that doesn't benefit its home country is a cancer.

>You see you're missing the point here. They are only lowering the value of society, much like a lot of black communities for example, because their material and economic conditions are so poor.

I would use home countries as an example. I believe you give other peoples too much credit.

>If we alleviated these problems, the rest would sort its self out, as at the end of the day people's behavior are molded by their material conditions. We very much have the resources to give everyone not only in say the US but the whole whole a decent standard of living, but our current economic system does not accommodate this.

This is naive. The US gives out many millions upon millions in aid each year and this has little effect on how many behave. Money isn't the issue, the people are.

>I have a question then, how do you determine who is the most capable of something? Why not construct a system in which thoes most 'capable' naturally rise to important positions without anything being needed to prop them up, like Socialism?

It usually depends on some form of consensus, such as most everyone agreeing that a scientist having invented something should have more pull than someone without any such accomplishment.

So, I suppose the idea can be summed less poorly as giving everyone the chance to succeed and dismissing those incapable with regards to any leadership position.

>>4139
>I think open borders would be perfectly fine if our society was structured in the correct way - we have the ability to accommodate for all these refugees with next to do cultural friction but it's not profitable.
Why is it the responsibility of a prosperous country to open itself up to those not capable of achieving similar prosperity?

>>4143
>Even illegals though, the only reason they're a problem in the first place is because of Capitalism and market forces.
You can blame whatever you want, but have you ever considered that many of these people would be nasty and destructive regardless of their position?

  No.4145

>>4144
>The US gives out many millions upon millions in aid
Ah, yes. Aid to ISIS, cartels, terrorist cells.

  No.4148

>>4144
>Why is it the responsibility of a prosperous country to open itself up to those not capable of achieving similar prosperity?

why is it the responsibility of anybody to help their neighbor?

>You can blame whatever you want, but have you ever considered that many of these people would be nasty and destructive regardless of their position?


I have, and I decided it was wrong.

  No.4149

>>4148
>why is it the responsibility of anybody to help their neighbor?
Neighbors have similarities, live in close proximity, and it builds trust.
What use is there in the US giving aid to Nigeria or Saudi Arabia, countries which actively squander it or actively hate the US?

>I have, and I decided it was wrong.

We fundamentally disagree then.
Again, it seems that you're giving others too much credit. You believe that the only difference between the civilized superpowers and violent savages is wealth and other evils.

  No.4150

>>4144
>Any company that doesn't benefit its home country is a cancer.

I'm more tempted to say any company is cancer period. The same inherent flaws of Capitalism still apply regardless of if a corporation has good intentions or not, or if it sells in it's 'home country'.

>I would use home countries as an example.

Their home countries are fucked too, often by outside intervention.

>This is naive.


Well, not really, it's the result of decades going on centuries of philosophical and socioeconomic theory, but that's besides the point.

>The US gives out many millions upon millions in aid each year and this has little effect on how many behave. Money isn't the issue, the people are.


Charity is not the solution. The solution is fixing the problems that cause the need for charity in the first place. Watch this video, again by Zizek, explaining this concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

>

So, I suppose the idea can be summed less poorly as giving everyone the chance to succeed and dismissing those incapable with regards to any leadership position.

This is pretty much what Socialism advocates - start everyone at the same point of the track, with the same resources available to them (this mostly is in regards to quality of education) and just let thoes naturally better or thoes who want it more win.

>Why is it the responsibility of a prosperous country to open itself up to those not capable of achieving similar prosperity?


Two reasons. Firstly, it's often the fault of that country through Imperialism that there are people coming in in the first place, and secondly because we do actually have the resources to provide decent lives for them, and economically they will actually be positive for that country. As I've said lots in this thread, we have the ability to give them decent standards of living but it's not profitable so we don't.

Not even in our own countries, but across the whole world. That alone would reduce immigration a lot.

>You can blame whatever you want, but have you ever considered that many of these people would be nasty and destructive regardless of their position?


I wasnt even referring to their behavior in society, I think you missed my point here. I'm saying that the reason illegal immigrants are willing to work for less, and the reason people will allow them to work for less and get other people out of jobs, is because of Capitalism. A society run not on profit but on use would not allow this.

The point you made though I also have to disagree with. If you put anyone else in their position you'd see similar behavior.

  No.4151

>>4150
>This is pretty much what Socialism advocates - start everyone at the same point of the track, with the same resources available to them (this mostly is in regards to quality of education) and just let thoes naturally better or thoes who want it more win.
That's interesting. Does socialism also support the idea of light eugenics? I'm not referring to killing inferior people, but merely preventing them from reproducing. I don't want to derail this thread, but this may be an important difference in our perspectives.

>Two reasons. Firstly, it's often the fault of that country through Imperialism that there are people coming in in the first place, and secondly because we do actually have the resources to provide decent lives for them, and economically they will actually be positive for that country. As I've said lots in this thread, we have the ability to give them decent standards of living but it's not profitable so we don't.

Blaming a successful country with phrases such as "Imperialism" turns people off. It's like original sin at this point.
Would you give an example of what you mean by improving their situation. I don't want to watch a video and apparently donating money isn't suitable.
I don't support international charity in any form, though. Globalism is bad in part because it tries to keep every failing country afloat, but also for many other reasons.

  No.4152

>>4149
You have it backwards! You're giving those "civilized" societies more credit than they're due. In the end modern states are just evolutions of warlord and petty kings that you so despise.

States are a cancer which have warped humanity, and to improve humanity we have to destroy them

  No.4153

File: 1484355418925.png (332.02 KB, 200x160, gondola.jpg)

bumo
fuck
top kek ebin

I just want fascism

  No.4161

>>4151
>Does socialism also support the idea of light eugenics?

The topic isn't really related to Socialism so there isn't much of a Socialist perspective to it. I would assume that, people would be free to breed with whoever they want, as Socialist society is fairly libertarian in the social sense (drugs, religion, speech ect) but in terms of actual gene therapy and bio-genetics which will be more mainstream soon, they would be allowed but only if open to the whole of society. Otherwise they must be restricted.

>Blaming a successful country with phrases such as "Imperialism" turns people off. It's like original sin at this point.


Well I mean, that's because a lot of first world countries do it. Not even just recently but throughout history. It's a fundamental part of global Capitalism, and without it there would be no way to fight the falling rate of profit, as shown in pic related.

>Would you give an example of what you mean by improving their situation.


For a start ending the rampant exploitation of almost slave labour that happens there. Start building up infrastructure like transport and education, get stable food and energy resources.

From there, give the people living there more democratic control over their own communities as their countries become more industrialized and less dependent. This will in the long term benefit the country helping out with this, as it will cause greater productivity from these countries, and greatly reduce the immigration from them.

  No.4188

>>4143
>because of Capitalism

>Live in a third-world communist country

>The communist economy is terrible
>The communist government is oppressive
>Corruption is rampant
>No money to emigrate legally, assuming emigration is legal
>Desperation to escape this communist hellhole drives me to illegally enter and reside in another country that is less shitty
>...And people will say capitalism made me do this?

  No.4189

>>4188
What communist country? Venezuela? Yeah, they presented capitalism with a socialist face. Cuba? Maybe, but there are plenty of gripes communists have with that implementation of communism too. North Korea? Don't make me laugh; they don't even pretend to be socialist anymore.

  No.4190

>4144
>Why is it the responsibility of a prosperous country to open itself up to those not capable of achieving similar prosperity?
It's not strictly that country's responsibility, but there is not, and has never been, the possibility for some countries to prosper. Ideally prosperity would be bountiful enough to share.

  No.4191

>>4096
>illegal immigrants give more back to society than citizens
Where are the proofs?
>illegal immigrants being hired illegally and, thus, not held to legal payment standards is market competition.
Wrong.
>illegal immigrants leave their homeland because its shitty
Citizens make up their country.
>People don't make up the culture of their country
Wonder what's so shitty about their country that they'd like to leave illegally

  No.4192

>>4151
>I'm not referring to killing inferior people, but merely preventing them from reproducing.
Denial of the right to reproduce is nearly the same sentence as death. With genetic modification advancing as quickly as it is, additive alteration of the genepool is clearly a superior answer in the coming future.

  No.4193

>>4191
>Citizens make up their country.
Citizens are rarely in control of the socio-economic and governmental factors which make up far more of their country.

  No.4194

>>4193
Citizens make up the culture/government of their country. Higher-order functions of society are dependent on the individual units that comprise society. Those units are people. It's the reason why Sub-Saharan Africa, Indochina, and the Mediterranean all have vastly different cultures and the government put in place by those cultures.

  No.4205

>>4096
>that image

I like it, a lot. Gonna share that on my radfem twitter bubble.

I like to follow feministcurrent.com for sane feminism.

  No.4208

As far as immigration goes, the right is partially correct, but what they fail to realize is the cause of immigration.

mass immigration of poor people is caused by the destruction of local jobs by Free Trade and other capitalist ploys. They are more than happy to take substandard living conditions because they have no other choice.

The liberal rejoices in the fact they've found more people to work for less than min wage, with terrible saftey conditions. They also rejoice in the ass backwards cultures they bring that are often coordinated by western intelligence(radical islam), that keep them from organizing for better wages, or integrating with the natives, as well as fighting their wars without question.(ISIS, ha!), and doesn't have to give them the same rights as full citizens.

This isn't real multiculturalism, its capitalist disinformation.

Under real socialism, there is one rule for everyone, and we don't permit reactionaries of any kind.

  No.4222

>>4208
>Under real socialism, there is one rule for everyone, and we don't permit reactionaries of any kind.
You have no power to inhibit anybody from doing anything, and given power you would just turn into a tyrant.

  No.4241

>>4096
I would laugh if it were funny but having no go zones is not funny, neither is fearing for my siblings or me for simply being outside or not hearing a single word of my language in public transport

>part of the population that not only gives more back to the economy than it takes in taxes

Simply naive to think they don't send it back, actually factually wrong since the confirmed money stream TO the countries is abnormally high. Try getting magic taxes from there will ya? Polish workers do this as well but at least the money is A: Taxed due to it being work not welfare and B: in the neighbors country that has a lot of trade with us.

>immigrants are taking our jobs and lowering our wages

Immigrants do a shitty job, they aren't magical monks with iron will and skill they just skip everything they can in hopes that they get payed something and have a plus. If you don't believe me take a look in low lever service industries or some handyman work.

>they just decided one day to leave their homes and communities and cultures for no reason

Of course not, that would be weird but not scummy like reality where the movement data shows that they aim for exactly one thing: Welfare states. They travel through thousands of kilometers of peaceful nations without a stop to get to one of those countries where you get awarded money for existing and your crimes are actively downplayed.

And that last part isn't worth the effort, just another excuse to shove these pricks some more stuff up the butt in hopes that they magically stop being leeches, because a district with high welfare usage has always risen out of the dirt...

  No.4247

>>4241
>[what frightens me is] not hearing a single word of my language in public transport
This might be news to you, but there are quite a lot of human languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_languages
maybe you should learn more than one some time, it might lessen your irrational fear of people who mind their own business and speak to each other in a language different from yours, you do realize that a lot of people are multi-lingual, right? Are we supposed to not speak some languages when we're near sensitive people like you due to an elevated likelihood of you having a moment? Fine, but then by all means, signal that you are in this special category of sensitive people by some external signifier, how else are we supposed to figure this out by ourselves? Perhaps you could invest in a pin, or a special t-shirt that says "ALL OTHER LANGUAGES THAN X OFFENDS ME", I will mind and act accordingly whenever I see you on the subway, flopwop.

  No.4257

>>4247
I'm not who you responded to.

>This might be news to you, but there are quite a lot of human languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_languages

Yes there are. The less developed societies have too many to operate on a national level and so use a combination of a chosen language and English; China and India are two good examples.

>maybe you should learn more than one some time, it might lessen your irrational fear of people who mind their own business and speak to each other in a language different from yours, you do realize that a lot of people are multi-lingual, right?

I'm multilingual, but would also be alarmed to not hear the native and official language of my country in a public area. It would let me know that something wrong is happening with the demographics, something that feels eerily like an invasion.

I would then notice that these less developed countries, such as China and India, don't have this problem, and this only furthers the idea that something wrong is happening to my country, in particular.

>Are we supposed to not speak some languages when we're near sensitive people like you due to an elevated likelihood of you having a moment? Fine, but then by all means, signal that you are in this special category of sensitive people by some external signifier, how else are we supposed to figure this out by ourselves? Perhaps you could invest in a pin, or a special t-shirt that says "ALL OTHER LANGUAGES THAN X OFFENDS ME", I will mind and act accordingly whenever I see you on the subway, flopwop.

That's just a big insult.

  No.4262

>>4189
This tired fallacy again.
>Communism has never been tried!
>What about North Korea?
>I mean my extremely specific, arcane, and utopian version of Communism solely discussed in academic circles has never been tried!

  No.4267

Lainchan censorship is biased to the right.

  No.4268

>>4267
I've been on lainchan since a few months after it went live, and I'm actually quite impressed by the moderation on here.
I don't see any bias, only a fair warning to what was starting to develop into (and arguably already was) personal attacks and aggressiveness.

  No.4269

>>4267
I think that depends on the mod. They mostly let me off the hook when I was sh*lling for extreme radical-left stuff half a year ago or so. I was tiptoeing on greyzones I think, so I got a slap on the wrist and that was that.

Hint: the mods seem to distinguish pretty hard between trollish, inflammatory attitude aimed at nobody in particular, and insulting attitude targeted at other posters even if not very strong. So a poster who collectively compares non-US citizens talking about US politics to an annoying yapping dog who gets kicked away by its owners gets off the hook, but targeted sarcasm like in >>4247 gets you banned. It's the feeling I've often gotten anyhow, not sure if accurate. Inflammatory political opinions on either side: fine; insults: not fine.

  No.4270

>>4267
>>4268
>>4269

Discussion about lainchan moderation belongs on /q/. If you want to continue that sort of discussion without violating rule 6, please make relevant /q/ thread and discuss it there.

As for my opinion on this topic, political spectrum is more complicated than just left wing and right wing, left wing and right wing don't describe a aeroplane adequately or a turkey adequately let alone political belief systems.

Generalizations are inaccurate by definition unless you actually measure their accuracy with surveys and sampling and applied statistics.

Regarding immigration and its impact on culture, it is an even more complicated subject, because whilst culture should be maintained, culture isn't a static entity that remains constant for all eternity.

Different countries and communities have different levels of cultural stasis for different reasons.

I don't think there is a simple solution, I think cross culturalism will eventually arise in the long term (thousands of years), if we don't destroy humanity first.

  No.4293

File: 1485022195972-0.png (2.47 MB, 200x113, chinaandafafrica.webm)

File: 1485022195972-1.png (1.66 MB, 41x200, German integration.jpg)

>>4150
>Imperialism
All those African tribes were killing each other long before the White man arrived. We exploited them, true, but they got to taste civilization for the first time. They got access to more food, better housing, medicine, and longer lifespans. They didn't opt for it, but once we left them to govern themselves they could've gone back to the savannah. Yet, none of them did.
>economically they will actually be positive for that country
No, they won't. They take the few unskilled jobs still left, for less than the working class would, saving corporations money but lowering the average income of the people. Everyone with a job has to pay more taxes to support the increase in welfare and prisons. They kill, rape and loot for the sheer pleasure of it. And even if that weren't the case, even if they saved us money, I'd rather not have animals as my neighbors.
You're partly right the reason is Capitalism. Capitalism enables it, but the reason behind it is to weaken us.

  No.4301

>>4270
This explains a lot about why alt-right stuff gets left alone by moderators.

>>4293
The good "Slavery was actually good for Africans!"

  No.4305

>>4293
Freedom is more important for human flourishing than material prosperity.