http://www.lalkar.org/article/4408/immi ... ts-for-all
The say birth rate is dropping in UK then declare "If there aren’t enough young people, surely it makes sense to welcome immigrants!"
What exactly is the difference between this view on immigration and Goldman sachs or J P Morgan? Read the below for them to admit it
http://www.lalkar.org/article/4408/immi ... ts-for-all"We at Lalkar don’t believe immigration is the great problem that bourgeois politicians of all stripes would have us believe. In fact, the captains of industry (what industry is actually left) and the majority of those great and good personages haunting Westminster’s tea rooms and occasionally parking their sanctimonious backsides on the much-coveted green seats of supposed power, also understand that immigration is not some horror coming over the Channel in little boats to destroy our society. "
They admit they are in complete lockstep with imperialism! It is not a horror, of course, for the "cultured" middle classes who live in "cultured" areas. It is working class British women that has to have foreign men following them around and hissing at them like they are in some Moroccan souk. Working class British children that are gang-raped on racially motivated attacks. It is the working class squeezed into these ghettos whilst services do not expand.
(https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/22/jpmorga ... us-economy. html / https://www.ft.com/content/96dc9516-22d ... 7a6ccc2b48)
The UK NHS was putting out adverts with high heels and computer gamepads and baby dummies a few decades ago. Being a slut or computer gamer was preferable to motherhood and fatherhood.
Then after everyone would rather be sluts or computer gamers they demand migrants to fill the vacuum.
And whilst reading the anti-revisionist encyclopedia I see CPgbml debate with CPBml (2 separate parties) and the CPgbml article defending their Goldman Sachs view on immigration.
This is from a 2007 article which could really be written by any number of trot orgs https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/u ... ar-cpb.htm
"A campaign must be built around the slogans that ’no worker should be declared illegal for wanting to work’ and ’imperialism is the main enemy of all workers’. It is the system of capitalist production that produces unemployment, homelessness, destitution and crumbling social facilities, not to say incessant wars – not workers, be they ’indigenous’ or foreign."
There is no mention of how immigration works the same as LGBT and teaching 5 year olds how to suck cock under new government curriculum and they are "sexual from birth". A lie taken from the paedophile child abuser Alfred Kinsey.... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... r-infants/
A form of divide and conquer. Destroy wages of the working class so they are on subsistence level and can never earn enough to maintain a decent lifestyle and reproduce their own class (look at the DINK, Dual Income, no Kids, phenomena! Or the complete contempt imperialist citizens have of children and babies!)
Why should any communist support immigration today? What is the rationale behind this?
They are left pillar of imperialism by importing a load of social-democrats (or conservatives in the case of this Afghani https://brentford.nub.news/news/local-n ... n-hounslow) who otherwise be forced to pick up a gun and become revolutionaries back home.
Immanuel Ness's Migration as Economic Imperialism has recently quite conclusively proven that economic migration is a pillar of imperialism. What is the cause of communists (who are overwhelmingly upper middle class) supporting this view?
Is it they are afraid that their Vietnamese nail salons will disappear, their cheap Polish plumbers? Their Romani strawberry pickers?
That they will have to pay appropriate wages to British working class for these jobs (that would make them unaffordable to the middle-upper and middle class)?
