As western leftists, it is generally in our interests to oppose national borders and believe in universal immigration policies. While there may be a short term lowering of wages, without the threat of deportation over their heads the act of worker organization becomes an easier thing to push for nation-wide.
my personal belief is that all borders world wide should be abolished. I feel even more strongly about this when it comes to the Western Hemisphere (where I was born, have spent all my life). There is literally no sound argument for keeping our borders in place, unless citizens consider wasteful spending in support of paranoia and sentimentalismo to be "sound" thinking. I think you would mostly agree with this statement perhaps with some caveats? ie, it is a bit of a fool's errand.
While those are good sentiments to have, there is a good third-worldist argument for borders, in that they provide a legal framework that can protect state sovereignty and socialist projects from attack within the liberal global system. For instance, I think the dissolution of the U.S.-Mexico border would prove to be disastrous for the Mexican state because it would allow the U.S. military to cross over unimpeded into Mexican territory and threaten Mexican towns for no other reason than 'we think drugs are coming from there'. This is why they help fund border security with the U.S, it's basically a payoff to the U.S. military.
Now, is this a sustainable long-term view for a leftist to have? No, in my opinion. Is it even based in historical analysis? Not really, as the U.S. government historically funds whatever destabilizing groups it wants to within countries borders. Does that mean it is necessarily incorrect? Also no. There are good reasons to believe that disposing of the current liberal states framework without ALSO disposing of the model of imperium would lead to even more belligerent imperial conquest. HOWEVER, to paraphrase Brace Belden and quote Mao, political power comes from the barrel of a gun, if you can't protect it, it's already not yours. If your socialist project is completely dependent on the beneficence of the liberal global system, you are already fucked. That being said, be kind to your comrades who make these arguments, especially if they come from those countries, it is the most pragmatic stance they can take and thus completely understandable.
Ultimately we live in a word of historical development, not utopian idealism. The development of free borders will hopefully arise naturally from the natural conditions, and contradictions emerge between international capital, international labor and liberal states. Will it lead to a borderless future? We can only hope so.
RE the need to keep potentially, yes. We need to be sure that any change is done in a way that benefits the players as they need. Too often in the past, the USA has somehow managed to find a way to screw the developing countries over in ways that honestly I cannot even imagine how they do it. The partnerships end up seeming more like Faustian bargains than anything else, deals with the devil.
Correct. However, much like with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, sometimes a deal with the devil is what ultimately saves you, but you should never mistake the devil for your friend or an honest bargainer. And If the difference is bargain or destruction, it is better to bargain.
Again, ultimately it is unclear how these border changes will be made or progress, but thinking they will happen within the current economic framework is foolhardy at best. Perhaps it will occur within a non-capitalist framework after the revolution. Tough to say.
my personal belief is that all borders world wide should be abolished. I feel even more strongly about this when it comes to the Western Hemisphere (where I was born, have spent all my life). There is literally no sound argument for keeping our borders in place, unless citizens consider wasteful spending in support of paranoia and sentimentalismo to be "sound" thinking. I think you would mostly agree with this statement perhaps with some caveats? ie, it is a bit of a fool's errand.
While those are good sentiments to have, there is a good third-worldist argument for borders, in that they provide a legal framework that can protect state sovereignty and socialist projects from attack within the liberal global system. For instance, I think the dissolution of the U.S.-Mexico border would prove to be disastrous for the Mexican state because it would allow the U.S. military to cross over unimpeded into Mexican territory and threaten Mexican towns for no other reason than 'we think drugs are coming from there'. This is why they help fund border security with the U.S, it's basically a payoff to the U.S. military.
Now, is this a sustainable long-term view for a leftist to have? No, in my opinion. Is it even based in historical analysis? Not really, as the U.S. government historically funds whatever destabilizing groups it wants to within countries borders. Does that mean it is necessarily incorrect? Also no. There are good reasons to believe that disposing of the current liberal states framework without ALSO disposing of the model of imperium would lead to even more belligerent imperial conquest. HOWEVER, to paraphrase Brace Belden and quote Mao, political power comes from the barrel of a gun, if you can't protect it, it's already not yours. If your socialist project is completely dependent on the beneficence of the liberal global system, you are already fucked. That being said, be kind to your comrades who make these arguments, especially if they come from those countries, it is the most pragmatic stance they can take and thus completely understandable.
Ultimately we live in a word of historical development, not utopian idealism. The development of free borders will hopefully arise naturally from the natural conditions, and contradictions emerge between international capital, international labor and liberal states. Will it lead to a borderless future? We can only hope so.
RE the need to keep potentially, yes. We need to be sure that any change is done in a way that benefits the players as they need. Too often in the past, the USA has somehow managed to find a way to screw the developing countries over in ways that honestly I cannot even imagine how they do it. The partnerships end up seeming more like Faustian bargains than anything else, deals with the devil.
Correct. However, much like with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, sometimes a deal with the devil is what ultimately saves you, but you should never mistake the devil for your friend or an honest bargainer. And If the difference is bargain or destruction, it is better to bargain.
Again, ultimately it is unclear how these border changes will be made or progress, but thinking they will happen within the current economic framework is foolhardy at best. Perhaps it will occur within a non-capitalist framework after the revolution. Tough to say.