[Atlantis]

If you are unhappy with the regime you live under, you have two options: 1) change the regime by a revolution, or 2) move to another regime. The migrants have opted for the latter.

If you, for a second, stop considering migrants as unwanted intruders and consider them as human beings like you and me, this makes in fact eminent sense. Leaving aside the class of highly paid Expats, most migrants constitute what used to be known as Lumpenproletariat, the underlings that are the carrier of revolutionary change. That change is no longer a regime-change on the national level brought about by a revolution, it is a change on the international level, corresponding to international inequality, which has become a problem more pressing than national inequality.

In this scenario, the Western left is actually part of the exploiting class which is now joining forces with racist elements on the far-right to fight off the new Lumpenproletariat. The decline of the left is largely due to this contradiction. In the face of today's change, the traditional left, instead of fighting for the underdog, focuses largely on defending its own privileges, just like the capitalists of old.

[noir]

When did the Germans change anything by revolution? It's against the nation psyche.

Meanwhile

[Rugoz]

most migrants constitute what used to be known as Lumpenproletariat, the underlings that are the carrier of revolutionary change.

I leave it to TIG to correct that nonsense.

corresponding to international inequality, which has become a problem more pressing than national inequality.

How about using google instead of farting all over the place.

[quetzalcoatl]

That change is no longer a regime-change on the national level brought about by a revolution, it is a change on the international level, corresponding to international inequality, which has become a problem more pressing than national inequality.

...the Western left is actually part of the exploiting class which is now joining forces with racist elements on the far-right to fight off the new Lumpenproletariat. The decline of the left is largely due to this contradiction. In the face of today's change, the traditional left, instead of fighting for the underdog, focuses largely on defending its own privileges, just like the capitalists of old.

Your analysis only makes sense in the light of a 'new and improved' interpretation of what is deemed to be 'left.' Left, in this degraded sense, is synonymous with free market liberalism. Free movement of labor, free movement of capital, and free movement of goods is its tripartite economic foundation. To recover some sense of the classic commitment to justice that was (once) the hallmark of the left, these latter day leftists have appended various cultural/social objectives that have superseded the deprecated leftist economic analysis. Your use of the term "traditional left" to describe these creatures is unwarranted.

Note that even under the strictest application of Marxist principles, there is no obligation for a socialist nation to accept unlimited immigration. Or even any immigration. The obligation of a socialist system is to survive, not to fulfill bourgeois moral precepts.

Economic migrants are, in a sense, revolutionaries. But whose revolution do they serve? They serve as unwitting canon fodder for the most revolutionary system of them all, laissez-faire capitalism. Their revolution is not against the privileged of their host nation, but of its proletariat.

[foxdemon]

Nice graph. Good to see the data takes non-GDP (market measured) income into account. So what can we see here?

Overall global affluence is increasing. In 1800 most people lived in poverty with a right skew, perhaps representing the upper class being fabulously wealthy relative to the commoners.

Note the beginning of a left skew in the 2015 Americas and Europe data. Europe is the only place that has brought everyone above the arbitrary poverty line.

Since most people here on POFO are Westerners, I'll give this one more attention. The increased left skew in the Americas and Europe might be due to right wing economic policies intended to concentrate wealth. Western elites might be trying to keep up with Asian elites but, due to the smaller size of their regional economies, can only do so by exploiting lower classes of Westerners. Political correctness, as a means of delegitimising common Western citizen's political agendas, could be seen as a means to accomplish this process of concentration of wealth by excluding the masses from setting the agenda. Thus Western elites are free to set policy that serves their own interests. Such as accumulating enough wealth to remain peers with Asia's elites.


Africa has a large left skew. They don't call Africa the hopeless continent for nothing.

Asia is more balanced but covers the full range of affluence distribution. The left skew in 1975 Asia data shows two Asias: mainly Japan versus rural India and China. Both the later two are currently industrialising and modernising. ASEAN has changed a lot between 1975 and 2015 also.

The 2055 version might look like a mirror image of the 1975 curve. Most affluence in Asia with other regions showing strong left skews in their income curves.

[Decky]

Leaving aside the class of highly paid Expats, most migrants constitute what used to be known as Lumpenproletariat, the underlings that are the carrier of revolutionary change.

No.

The proletariat are the revolutionary ones, lumpen scum tend towards being counter revolutionaries, they don't sell their labour for a living and instead live from begging or crime, they would not benefit (as a class) from socialism as they are not exploited for their surplus value as workers are. Most lumpen scum would likely end up in gulags. Where did you get the idea anyone considered the lumpenprolatariat revolutionary?

[SolarCross]

The proletariat are the revolutionary ones, lumpen scum tend towards being counter revolutionaries, they don't sell their labour for a living and instead live from begging or crime, they would not benefit (as a class) from socialism as they are not exploited for their surplus value as workers are. Most lumpen scum would likely end up in gulags. Where did you get the idea anyone considered the lumpenprolatariat revolutionary? :?:

Wasn't that Mao's idea? That those with the least to lose will be the ones who will fight the hardest?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Economic migrants are now revolutionaries? Perhaps this is a new type of noble savage myth.

[Pants-of-dog]

The OP makes no sense. In fact, it seems to say that people in oppressive situations are either migrants or revolutionaries, but not both.

[SolarCross]

Economic migrants are now revolutionaries? Perhaps this is a new type of noble savage myth.

The reality of revolutionaries is they have always just been gutter trash enjoying the disruption to normal law enforcement to loot and kill with impunity.

Savage yes, noble no.

[noir]

Soon Gaza will not be an open prison camp. Egypt will open its border permanently and hundred of thousands Pals who were funded and incited by EU will join their brothers in Europe. Europe who pampered the Pals problem will get Palestine of its own.

[B0ycey]

To some extent I agree with the OP. Marx and other revolutionaries from the 19th century was promoting equality through regime change. Today the fight is for equality for all by changing global attitudes rather than revolution. And SOME of the Communist left seem to conveniently forget Marx's message of an open utopian society in a classless borderless world and more focused on preserving their own interests by limiting the resources they have in their society to themselves.

Are migrants revolutionaries? They represent a message I guess rather than the bringers of revolution. They represent that our fellow man should be treated with respect and dignity. That we should help others in need like we would hope for others to do for us if the rolls were reversed. But where I disagree with the OP is that the left has somewhat abandoned migrants. The left has fractured into many ideologies. Most Socialists are in fact in favour of the rights of all man regardless of race, sex and creed. They protest on the streets to protect these rights. I would suggest instead we have people who consider themselves on the left, but are in fact on the right. They are the delusionists.

[Decky]

Wasn't that Mao's idea? That those with the least to lose will be the ones who will fight the hardest?

Marx (pbuh) explicitly states that the lumpenproletariat are a counter revolutionary force. What gives some upstart like Mao the right to challenge the cannon?

"The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue."

From the manifesto of the communist party, QED.

[mikema63]

I'd also note that the peasentry is what mao was talking about IIRC which is different than the than both the proles and the lumpenproles.

[SolarCross]

I'd also note that the peasentry is what mao was talking about IIRC which is different than the than both the proles and the lumpenproles.

An age ago I read a biography on Mao, it wasn't a hit piece either the author was basically neutral to mildly sympathetic, where if I remember correctly Mao made the point about those with the least to lose making the fiercest fighters, specifically mentioning what Marx calls the lumpenproles.

The peasents were useful cannon fodder because they were vastly numerous far more so than proletariat and not so much because of their motivation.

[QatzelOk]

If you are unhappy with the regime you live under, you have two options: 1) change the regime by a revolution, or 2) move to another regime.

Actually, there are many more options which you have conveniently left out in order to force your conclusion, that "migrants have chosen a revolutionary act."

The options are:
1) change the regime by a revolution
2) move to another regime
3) consume opioids or other drugs to excess
4) start a strict exercise regime to take control of your own body
5) play a lot of lotteries or video games
6) travel extensively to forget your own domestic problems

The current wave of desperate migrants are fleeing parts of the world that have been made unlivable by an economy and society that exploits the shit out of everything and virtually everyone.

And like with all the other (non-revolutionary) solutions from 2 to 6 that I listed, this kind of activity doesn't improve general conditions at all.