Bourgeois Nationalists!! LOOOOL

You're view that immigration policies would be maintained in a socialist world because people will want to preserve their national integrity is clearly a reactionary view.

You may found cheers for this in Stormfront but not in a communist forum.

I wanted to respond you in the proper thread but the thread was close because someone wasn't like to see me exposing all the bunch of holes of your reactionary ideology.

I just saw now your answer to my post in the other thread and you are really dumb. So, just because exploitation is one of the main elements of the state it means that will vanish with time? Dumbass, as long as the exploitative element is there you have exploitation. You think that you can maneuver the state just as you like? The state will always be maintained by the workers who work for it. Comparing the state with a hammer was also brilliant.

Sorry my language but you and your pals started it.

Lenin wrote about the oppressive character of the state that should be dominated by the working class once achieved power.

The latter stage of communism is a goal to be achieved otherwise the whole socialist theory is meaningless. It could be achieved but through staging.

Dude, also primitive tribes were not nations. What a ridiculous statement. This shows how much you and your theory are ridiculous. You want to make comparisons between immigration policies and tribal membership? LOOOL

Stalin indeed maintain the borders because he was living in a world dominated by the bourgeoisie. only a dumb like you don't understand it.

LOOOL. "Why would a socialist state embark on imperial voyages to secure markets abroad". You think this were the main economic interests behind World War? AHAHAHA I was talking about NATIONAL RESOURCES.

Comrade_Joe wrote:You're view that immigration policies would be maintained in a socialist world because people will want to preserve their national integrity is clearly a reactionary view.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble explaining why it's a "reactionary view," should you?

You may found cheers for this in Stormfront but not in a communist forum.

Yeah, the Stormfront crowd is very receptive to revolutionary socialists who espouse a form of nationalism which opposes imperialism and racism.

as long as the exploitative element is there you have exploitation. You think that you can maneuver the state just as you like?

Being that the state isn't some supernatural entity, it can be organized however people choose. The substructure of society will impact whether or not its governing institutions are effectively democratic, but a socialist organization of production will be a sufficient basis to provide people with the ability to establish a genuine democracy.

Comparing the state with a hammer was also brilliant.

I'm sorry. By now I should have been well aware that you lack the mental faculties to comprehend analogies.

Lenin wrote about the oppressive character of the state that should be dominated by the working class once achieved power.

Of course the state should "be dominated by the working class," as that's the only method by which to ensure it serves the interests of the working class. No one, least of all me, has ever suggested otherwise.

The latter stage of communism is a goal to be achieved otherwise the whole socialist theory is meaningless. It could be achieved but through staging.

Jesus Christ, how many times are we going to go over this? Communism is supposed to emerge as a result of the dialectical processes of history, not by fiat. Therefore, it cannot be considered a "goal." Capitalism didn't emerge because it was a "goal" sought by bourgeois ideologues in the past; material conditions are what facilitated its emergence.

My contention with the Marxist-Leninist theory of communism is that I see absolutely no reason to believe that a system of free access can be made to function, or that cosmopolitanism will arise as a result of communist social relations. Perhaps you can offer a response compelling enough to change my mind on the matter, though I seriously doubt it.

Dude, also primitive tribes were not nations.

I said tribal territories are analogous to nations, and tribal membership rules are analogous to immigration laws. What about that don't you understand? If you think the analogies are flawed, explain why. A series of emoticons and accusations that I'm a "duMbasS reeAktionaRie neo-Nazee!!1! LOOOOL!!" does not constitute a refutation of my position, sorry.

I was talking about NATIONAL RESOURCES.

And why would a socialist commonwealth democratically decide to send their children to die in wars for "NATIONAL RESOURCES" when they could just as easily avoid the bloodshed and cost by trading with foreign nations?