It is this:
Also, let us say – for the sake of argument – that the Soviet Union had much better GDP growth than it actually had, and was an attractive destination for Third World and First World immigrants. Should the Soviet Union have had an open borders policy that allowed a flood of people to overwhelm its welfare state, its public infrastructure, its housing capacity and social cohesion? Or should the government have allowed huge, unending, yearly mass immigration that effectively would have done the same thing?
No takers yet!!
Not part of the left, but here we go.
ReplyDeleteThe Soviet Union had various cultures and regions integrated into one. Many of them now exist as independent countries. People from those regions not only did move freely within the union, they were encouraged to do so.
Considering Russia rapidly became wealthier in the two decades after leaving the union, while many Central Asian states first saw huge economic contraction and then stagnation, it does seem the Soviet Union involved wealthier regions giving up their standard of living in favour of many many poorer ones.
So if the left was okay with that, wouldn't they be okay with a loss of standard of living for First World people in favour of Third World people?
Its took this regions and people no because of huminatarian reasons but because of soviet imperial ambitions.
DeleteAlso funny fact emigration been restricted as well.
Nice try, Prateek, but you evade the question.
DeleteThe Soviet Union STILL had strong national borders, even with internal wealth redistribution. What is more there were also strong internal restrictions on movement *within* the Soviet Union (with a system of, gasp!, internal passports).
My question was: why not completely open borders, especially with the Third World?
"Also, let us say – for the sake of argument – that the Soviet Union had much better GDP growth than it actually had, and was an attractive destination for Third World and First World immigrants."
ReplyDelete-Third world, always (mostly from China). First world, only really in the 1930s. However, border controls were tight, so Chinese never immigrated en masse to the USSR.
I think it should have allowed some more immigration, but not so much that it would have hindered its potential fighting capabilities.
In other words, you admit open borders would have been a catastrophe?
DeleteLK, you're forgetting that they had internal borders too. It wouldn't have made much sense for them to discard free slaves out of cultural reasons.
ReplyDeleteEven Bernie Sanders is against open borders. LK, I just now followed you on Twitter under @MankindGlobal
ReplyDeletewhy even?
Deletehe is not that much affected by post modernist toxic identity politics (in contrast with other democrats)
I don't understand your question?
DeleteI meant its not surprising that bernie is not for open borders in contrast with a lot of leftists today he is not brainwashed by post modernist identity politics propoganda with touches of neoliberalism.
DeleteElegant.
ReplyDelete"To proceed with what just globalization should be, we have to first settle questions about democratic versus authoritarian control of production, distribution, interchange, information, etc. All prerequisites for sensible discussion of interaction across borders — assuming that there even should be borders in a decent world (I think not, but that’s another large topic). Too many important questions are begged when we ask about a just form of globalization."
ReplyDeletehttps://chomsky.info/2006____/
Industrial substitution industrialization is way better path to develop third world countries than mass emigration.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/AnndraADunn/status/743113114678353920
ReplyDelete