4 ms·

Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals

Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective, but there is a good moral argument for it in that invisible lines shouldn't hamper freedom of movement for people. Nations are fake. The socialist left is against free trade and outsourcing. Period. We are internationalist and support trade with countries that will raise their labor conditions to parity. We also support anti-capitalist struggles abroad.

bart_spoon 7y ago
> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Except like so much with socialism, the reality and the hypothetical are in stark contrast. You are arguing that in theory, open borders allow for laborers to take their value to wherever it will benefit them the most. But in reality, it not particularly easy for an individual to pick up and move their entire lives, especially when we are talking about distances on the scale of international travel. So the workers who are willing to move end up being those with the least to lose, meaning those who do end up moving are those willing to settle for less. Say Mexico and the US opened their borders tomorrow. Do you see American laborers taking their skills to Mexico en masse? Or do you see Mexican laborers taking their skills en masse to America? How do you think the value of an American laborer is affected when the labor market gets flooded with supply, many of whom will likely be willing to work for less than their American counterparts?
- worik 7y ago
  Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico "opening the boarders" is impractical. Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico allowing free movement of capital between USA and Mexico enriches USA and impoverishes Mexico.
- dublinben 7y ago
  Open borders aren't only favored by socialists. Perhaps you would be interested in an explicitly capitalist, libertarian argument for the economic benefits of free immigration: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myth...
- tehjoker 7y ago
  > Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective, However, since you asked, yes Mexicans, who have been abused would flood into the richer north. Socialism is ultimately about creating an equal society, not about preserving disparities between the rich and the poor. However, we would need policies to help preserve American's livelihoods, such as a Federal Jobs Guarantee otherwise open borders would be unpopular and damage living standards. It's worth asking yourself why people born on one side of an invisible line deserve comfort and power and a baby born on the other side does not deserve to walk one foot north and find a better life.
champagneben 7y ago
> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. What? I seriously don't understand this. Find what deals? How does it make it harder? > Nations are fake. In what sense? Surely, given the opportunity, most people would prefer to live in Sweden as opposed to Liberia. Most would pick US citizenship over, say, Vietnamese.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Not sure about the first part, but nations are quite obviously fake constructions once you start prodding at the seams. The most instructive places to look at in that direction are border areas in general, and the Middle East in particular. Often times when you look at border areas you will see absurd divisions of people who would normally work together. The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a strong example. For the clear negative impact of borders though, the absurd creation of most Middle Eastern countries by British diplomats is one of the clearest examples. The arbitrary lines that were drawn through tribal lands and small fiefdoms, the people left without countries of their own (e.g. the kurds) or brought to power over vast swaths of other people (the Saudis)- it is all as absurd as can be, and has proven as poisonous as expected.
  - booboolayla 7y ago
    You're confusing a state and a nation. Kurds are still a nation, even though they don't have their own state. And of course, nations are not "fake." The "internationalist Left" caused two world wars trying to prove they're fake, but all their misguided projects end up breaking down into nation states.

bart_spoon 7y ago

> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. Except like so much with socialism, the reality and the hypothetical are in stark contrast. You are arguing that in theory, open borders allow for laborers to take their value to wherever it will benefit them the most. But in reality, it not particularly easy for an individual to pick up and move their entire lives, especially when we are talking about distances on the scale of international travel. So the workers who are willing to move end up being those with the least to lose, meaning those who do end up moving are those willing to settle for less. Say Mexico and the US opened their borders tomorrow. Do you see American laborers taking their skills to Mexico en masse? Or do you see Mexican laborers taking their skills en masse to America? How do you think the value of an American laborer is affected when the labor market gets flooded with supply, many of whom will likely be willing to work for less than their American counterparts?

worik 7y ago
Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico "opening the boarders" is impractical. Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico allowing free movement of capital between USA and Mexico enriches USA and impoverishes Mexico.
dublinben 7y ago
Open borders aren't only favored by socialists. Perhaps you would be interested in an explicitly capitalist, libertarian argument for the economic benefits of free immigration: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myth...
tehjoker 7y ago
> Without other policies it is atomizing and ineffective, However, since you asked, yes Mexicans, who have been abused would flood into the richer north. Socialism is ultimately about creating an equal society, not about preserving disparities between the rich and the poor. However, we would need policies to help preserve American's livelihoods, such as a Federal Jobs Guarantee otherwise open borders would be unpopular and damage living standards. It's worth asking yourself why people born on one side of an invisible line deserve comfort and power and a baby born on the other side does not deserve to walk one foot north and find a better life.

champagneben 7y ago

> Open borders is anti-capitalist because it allows labor to move with the same liberty as capital, so it can help reduce the ability of capitalists to find deals. What? I seriously don't understand this. Find what deals? How does it make it harder? > Nations are fake. In what sense? Surely, given the opportunity, most people would prefer to live in Sweden as opposed to Liberia. Most would pick US citizenship over, say, Vietnamese.

tsimionescu 7y ago
Not sure about the first part, but nations are quite obviously fake constructions once you start prodding at the seams. The most instructive places to look at in that direction are border areas in general, and the Middle East in particular. Often times when you look at border areas you will see absurd divisions of people who would normally work together. The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a strong example. For the clear negative impact of borders though, the absurd creation of most Middle Eastern countries by British diplomats is one of the clearest examples. The arbitrary lines that were drawn through tribal lands and small fiefdoms, the people left without countries of their own (e.g. the kurds) or brought to power over vast swaths of other people (the Saudis)- it is all as absurd as can be, and has proven as poisonous as expected.
- booboolayla 7y ago
  You're confusing a state and a nation. Kurds are still a nation, even though they don't have their own state. And of course, nations are not "fake." The "internationalist Left" caused two world wars trying to prove they're fake, but all their misguided projects end up breaking down into nation states.