There is a sure way to know whether you are dealing with a …

Speak your mind

Your assertion about the traditional left and the new left regarding border and immigration policy oversimplifies a complex issue and misrepresents historical and contemporary positions on both sides. Here’s a breakdown:

1. **Historical Context**: The left’s stance on immigration has never been as monolithic as you suggest. While it’s true that some historical labor unions and left-wing parties were skeptical of immigration due to concerns over workers’ rights and wages, this does not encapsulate the entire left-wing tradition. Libertarian socialist and anarchist elements have long advocated for open borders and the rights of workers across national lines[2][3].

2. **Complexity of Left-Wing Positions**: The left is not split neatly between a traditional left that opposes immigration and a new left that supports it. Left-wing parties often have mixed views on immigration, balancing economic protectionism with humanitarian and cosmopolitan concerns[1][3].

3. **Economic and Social Dynamics**: The impact of immigration on the labor market is multifaceted. While cheap labor can depress wages, it also contributes to economic growth, which benefits the broader working class. The left often seeks to address these issues through policies like job protection, fair wages, and strong labor rights rather than outright anti-immigration stances[4][5].

4. **Humanitarianism**: The framing of the new left as being aligned with corporate interests and using humanitarianism as a cover is misleading. Humanitarian concerns about migrants are genuine and rooted in principles of solidarity and human rights, not corporate interests. The left has traditionally advocated for the rights and dignity of all workers, including migrants[2][3].

5. **Working Class**: The suggestion that the new left hates the working class because of its nationalism, common sense, and lack of higher education is a caricature. The left has historically championed the rights and interests of the working class, advocating for better labor conditions and social protections. Nationalism and xenophobia have often been tools used to divide workers, undermining their collective power and rights[2][3].

In summary, the issue of immigration and border policy on the left is far more nuanced and diverse than your characterization suggests. It involves balancing economic, social, and humanitarian considerations, rather than aligning with corporate interests or hating the working class.

I've been looking into the upcoming German election, which is extremely interesting.
Their most "left" party split some time ago into two different parties.
One is in favor of open borders (new left) the other is concerned about the future of German workers and against open borders.
Both perfectly exemplify what I mean.
One is establishment-left, the other worker-left.

Your interpretation of the recent developments in the German Left Party (Die Linke) and its split into two factions seems to oversimplify the complexities involved. Here are some key points to consider:

1. **Split and Ideological Differences**: The split within Die Linke was primarily due to internal disputes and ideological differences rather than a clear-cut divide over open borders. The departure of Sahra Wagenknecht and her followers to form the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) was driven by a range of issues, including economic policies, migration, and geopolitical stances[2][4].

2. **New Left Party Stance**: The current Left Party, under new leadership since October 2024, has positioned itself strongly on social and economic issues, focusing on combating the affordability crisis and promoting policies like abolishing VAT on basic goods and introducing a wealth tax[1]. Their stance on immigration is not clearly defined as open borders but rather as opposing division and incitement against migrants, reflecting a broader commitment to social justice and anti-fascism[1][3].

3. **Wagenknecht and BSW**: Sahra Wagenknecht's new party, BSW, has been characterized by its rightward shift on certain issues like migration, gender, and climate, while maintaining left-wing economic policies and a pro-Russia, anti-NATO stance[2][5]. This does not necessarily fit the binary distinction between an "establishment-left" and a "worker-left."

4. **Membership Surge**: The Left Party has experienced a significant membership surge ahead of the 2025 elections, indicating a renewed interest in left-wing politics and a desire for more just policies among the German electorate[3].

In conclusion, the situation within Die Linke and its split is more nuanced and multifaceted than a simple division between open borders and anti-open borders stances. The current Left Party's focus on social and economic policies and its anti-fascist and pro-worker commitments reflect a broader spectrum of left-wing ideology rather than a binary distinction.

If you can't see the shift inside left-wing ideology away from the worker and towards corporations and "minorities" you are willfully blind.
Since the left has become the establishment it has changed completely.
Immigration policy is a great way to assess what kind of left you are dealing with, deny it all you like.

While it's understandable to perceive a shift within left-wing ideology, particularly concerning immigration and corporate relations, the situation is more complex. Here are some points to consider:

1. **Historical Context**: The left has always had diverse views on immigration. Left-wing parties are not uniformly pro-immigration but have historically advocated for integration policies and the rights of settled migrants, reflecting both economic and humanitarian considerations[2][4].

2. **Corporate America's Realignment**: Recent studies have shown that corporate America is becoming more liberal, but this does not necessarily mean the left has abandoned workers' interests. Factors like increased gender and racial diversity among corporate elites and internal pressures from employees and stakeholders contribute to this shift, but it does not signify a complete takeover by the left[1][3].

3. **Party Ideology and Immigration**: Immigration policy is not a straightforward left-right issue. Left-wing parties often favor integration policies and rights for settled migrants, while being cautious about the impact of immigration on native workers and trade unions. Right-wing parties, influenced by business lobbies, may support certain types of immigration, complicating the simplistic view that the left is pro-immigration and the right is anti-immigration[2][4].

4. **The Progressive Left**: The progressive left holds very liberal views across various issues, including immigration and race, and advocates for expanded social safety nets and higher taxes on large businesses. This does not indicate a shift away from workers but rather a broader commitment to social justice and anti-inequality policies[5].

5. **Establishment and Ideological Shifts**: The claim that the left has become the establishment and shifted away from workers towards corporations and minorities oversimplifies the complex ideological and policy shifts within left-wing parties. The left's focus on social and economic policies, including immigration, reflects a nuanced approach to addressing both worker and broader social concerns.

In conclusion, the issue of left-wing ideology and immigration policy is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a binary opposition between a worker-oriented left and a corporate-aligned left. The left's stance on immigration reflects a balance of economic, social, and humanitarian considerations rather than a simplistic shift towards corporate interests.

You oversimply the oversimplification, which is politically suspicious.

The discussion on immigration policy and party ideologies reveals a complex landscape that defies simplistic binary characterizations. Here are some key observations:

1. **Historical and Contemporary Perspectives**:
- Historically, left-wing parties were often more cautious towards immigration due to concerns about its impact on native workers and trade unions, while right-wing parties were more favorable towards certain types of immigration, such as guest-worker programs and family reunification rights, influenced by industry lobbies and conservative family values[1][3][5].
- Contemporary left-wing parties tend to favor more liberal policies towards undocumented migrants and refugees, while also advocating for integration policies that grant labor, welfare, and citizenship rights to settled migrants[1][3].

2. **Internal Divisions**:
- Both left and right-wing parties are internally divided on immigration issues. For example, within the left, there are those who support cosmopolitan and humanitarian perspectives on immigration, while others are more cautious due to economic protectionist concerns[3][5].
- Similarly, right-wing parties may have divisions between those who support economic market liberalism (favoring immigration) and cultural conservatives (opposing immigration)[3][5].

3. **Complexity of Immigration Policy**:
- Immigration policy cannot be reduced to a simple left-right divide. The restrictiveness of immigration policy reforms varies according to the type of policy (border controls, entry, or integration) and the migrant categories targeted (high and low-skilled workers, family members, or asylum seekers)[1][3][5].
- Policies are often influenced by different ideologies, interests, and lobbies, leading to contradictory and incoherent policy outcomes[3][5].

4. **Empirical Evidence**:
- Empirical studies have shown that there is no robust relationship between the political orientation of parties in power and overall changes in immigration policy restrictiveness. The left and right have both passed liberal and restrictive policies depending on the specific issues and interests at stake[3][5].

In conclusion, the complexities of immigration policy and party ideologies cannot be simplified to a binary opposition or a clear-cut divide between left and right. The internal divisions within parties, the influence of various interests and lobbies, and the specific policy issues at stake all contribute to nuanced and complex policy outcomes. Any oversimplification of this complexity may indeed be politically suspicious, as it fails to capture the multifaceted nature of the debate.

Now you are willfully misunderstanding.
The division i made wasn't between left and right, but traditional left and new left. Worker-left and establishment-left.

Your distinction between the traditional left (often labeled as "worker-left") and the new left (often referred to as "establishment-left") highlights a significant shift within left-wing ideologies over the last few decades. Here’s a detailed explanation based on the sources provided:

1. **Traditional Left vs. New Left**:
- The traditional left, often aligned with labor movements and unionization, has historically focused on economic disparities and worker rights. This aligns with traditional Marxist ideals emphasizing class struggle[1][3][4].
- The new left, emerging from the 1960s, expanded its focus beyond class struggle to include civil rights, gender issues, and environmental concerns. It also embraced direct action and participatory democracy over traditional political structures[1][3][5].

2. **Worker-Left vs. Establishment-Left**:
- The worker-left can be seen as an extension of the traditional left, prioritizing workers' rights and economic policies that benefit the working class. This perspective is critical of immigration policies that could potentially depress wages and undermine workers' bargaining power[4].
- The establishment-left, more aligned with the new left, often focuses on broader social issues, including identity politics, climate change, and human rights. This faction tends to support more liberal immigration policies and emphasizes social justice over strict economic protectionism[1][2][3].

3. **Key Differences**:
- The traditional left emphasized economic and class-based struggles, while the new left expanded this focus to include various social issues.
- The worker-left, akin to the traditional left, prioritizes workers' interests and is more cautious about immigration, while the establishment-left champions broader social and environmental concerns, often embracing more open immigration policies.

Given these distinctions, it's clear that your initial division was aimed at highlighting the shift within left-wing ideologies, particularly in how different factions within the left address issues like immigration and economic policy.

To address your concern about misunderstanding, I acknowledge that your original distinction was not between left and right but rather between different strands within the left itself. This distinction is crucial for understanding the evolution of left-wing thought and its diverse responses to contemporary issues.

I'll even give you the historical point.
There was always a divide between worker-left and establishment-left.

Your assertion about a historical divide between the "worker-left" and "establishment-left" is supported by various sources, particularly by looking at the evolution of left-wing ideologies:

1. **Historical Divide**:
- The distinction between these two strands of left-wing thought can be traced back to different eras and contexts. For instance, the early labor movement in the United States and Europe often focused on economic issues and workers' rights, aligning more with the "worker-left" perspective[1][3].
- In contrast, more establishment-oriented left-wing parties and factions have historically been more focused on broader social and political issues, such as civil rights and democratic reforms, which aligns more with the "establishment-left" perspective[2][3].

2. **Evolution of Left-Wing Thought**:
- The left-wing spectrum has evolved significantly over time, incorporating various ideologies and movements. The French Revolution initially defined the left and right political spectrum, with those on the left opposing the Ancien Régime and supporting democratic and secular institutions[2][3].
- Over the 19th and 20th centuries, left-wing thought expanded to include various ideologies like socialism, communism, and social democracy, each with its own distinct views on economic and social issues[2][3].

3. **American Labor Movement**:
- The American labor movement, particularly in the mid-20th century, exemplifies the divide between the worker-left and establishment-left. Traditional unions like the AFL-CIO were often conservative and focused on economic issues, while newer, more radical unions and social movements pushed for broader social and political reforms[1].

4. **New Left and Traditional Left**:
- The New Left movement in the 1960s and 1970s further highlighted this divide. New Leftists critiqued traditional labor unions for being too conservative and bureaucratic, advocating instead for more radical and participatory forms of democracy and social change[1].

5. **Contemporary Context**:
- Today, the distinction between the worker-left and establishment-left can be seen in various contexts, such as in debates over immigration policy, where some left-wing factions focus more on workers' rights and economic protectionism, while others emphasize broader social and humanitarian concerns[1][3].

In summary, while the specific terminology of "worker-left" and "establishment-left" might not be universally used, the historical and contemporary contexts of left-wing ideology and politics do indeed reflect a divide between these two perspectives.

In conclusion: the moment the left has enough power, it abandons the working class and focuses on self-serving central planning (on a global scale).

Your conclusion that "the moment the left has enough power, it abandons the working class and focuses on self-serving central planning (on a global scale)" is a broad and contentious statement that does not fully capture the complexities of left-wing ideology and its relationship with the working class. Here are some points to consider based on the sources provided:

1. **Historical Context and Complexities of Left-Wing Ideology**:
- The left has historically been diverse and complex, encompassing a range of ideologies and policies. While some left-wing governments have indeed shifted towards more market-oriented policies (a trend often associated with the "Third Way" approach), others have maintained strong commitments to workers' rights and social welfare[3][4].
- The centre-left, for example, generally supports mixed economies with moderate economic interventionism and welfare state policies, reflecting a balance between free markets and social protection[3].

2. **Challenges in Engaging the Working Class**:
- The relationship between the left and the working class is subject to various challenges, including the decline of union membership and the shifting composition of the working class. Left-wing parties often face difficulties in maintaining their traditional working-class base while adapting to broader social and economic changes[1][4].
- The article from Jacobin notes that left parties are struggling with class dealignment, where workers are abandoning social democracy, indicating a complex issue that goes beyond a simple abandonment of the working class by left-wing parties[4].

3. **Critiques of Central Planning**:
- The critique of central planning as inherently incompatible with worker autonomy and self-management is a valid concern within left-wing discourse. Scholars like Hahnel argue that central planning can lead to bureaucratic control and undermine worker autonomy, highlighting the importance of decentralized and participatory economic planning[5].
- The Mercatus Center publication by Don Lavoie also critiques central planning, arguing for a more decentralized and free-market approach to achieve progressive social change[2].