I challenge any neoconservatives in the observing audience to show me how Marxism is behind mass foreign immigration here in this thread.
I would argue big business and capitalism is behind foreign mass immigration into western nations. I would argue that money and corporate profit is behind foreign mass immigration.
Capitalism used (Neo)Marxist ideology to facilitate the process. The Marxian sentiments of âthe downtrodden have the right to the worldâ, and âpoor people are the best beingsâ, etc has been used as a lubricant here. Iâve always thought that Marx gave Capital a nifty playbook to destroy any true socialism. There was a lot of great socialism when Marx came onto the scene - all bottom up organizations leveraging Capitalist producers for better wages, days off, etc etc - (week-end was a right grained y such early socialists, before that only Sundays were off) - then Marx came unto the scene, fanatically condemned all these effective forms of socialism, and made a top-down system, meaning a metaphysics, in which all of the proletariat had supernatural powers and impeccable morals perfect self-knowledge and was magically destined to rule the world. Basically he turned Socialism into a mystical religion, which could then be very easily used by any clever Capitalistic âmagicianâ to rile people up whichever way they desired. "Your destiny calls you! This (war, project, service) is your Destiny!
So what youâre saying is liberal economic capitalism perverted socialism, that I can agree on.
Neoconservatives seem to think there is some kind of Marxist conspiracy to allow foreign mass immigration into the west, theyâre right that there is an ogoing conspiracy at hand but I would argue it is capitalists doing it. Thereâs nothing Marxist, socialist, or even communist about this modern economic hellscape weâre living in. The neoconservatives I would argue have themselves been betrayed by capitalism where I am mystified that they keep supporting it. The capitalists want to destroy neoconservatives, are actively targeting neoconservatism and yet the neoconservatives have been so brainwashed over the decades to carry the water of economic capitalism that they actively support the very thing that is harming them.
Itâs an ongoing enigma I have been watching for decades now.
I have already written this in another thread but it applies here, so:
The ethics of immigration are inextricably linked to the global economic system, which frequently creates the poverty that forces people to leave their homes. One key mechanism is the pressure of global markets, which undermines local self-sufficiency. When multinational producers or export-oriented economies flood markets with goods priced lower than local farmersâ or artisansâ produce, the latter are left with no viable livelihood. Understandably, buyers gravitate towards the cheapest option in the supermarket rather than sustaining the more expensive produce of their neighbours. The immediate result is financial loss, rendering local work unsustainable, or literal waste, as unsold produce rots in storage.
This dynamic has at least two effects. First, it weakens the resilience of the local community. If global supply chains break down due to war, a pandemic, a climate disaster or corporate collapse, the regionâs ability to feed itself will already have been undermined, increasing the risk of hunger and starvation. Secondly, the erosion of local farming or craft knowledge means that, once lost, these skills cannot easily be revived. Communities that could once sustain themselves become dependent on outside suppliers. If the dominant suppliers exploit the soil, deplete aquifers or push for monocultures that ultimately reduce yield, as has been shown in many instances, the resulting scarcity will drive prices far beyond what the poorest can afford.
In such conditions, migration is the natural and often the only rational response. People leave not because they lack loyalty to their homeland or because they seek comfort for its own sake, but because staying would mean slow impoverishment or starvation. From this perspective, immigration should not be framed as an individual moral failing or a problem to be controlled solely at the border. Rather, it highlights the deep interconnection between economic systems, ecological health and human survival. The ethical question therefore becomes: how can wealthy countries, international corporations and global trade systems bear responsibility for creating the very flows of displaced people that they then resist or criminalise?
In this context, immigration is not merely a political issue, but an indictment of an economic order that prioritises cheap consumption over sustainable production and externalises both human suffering and environmental damage. Debating the ethics of immigration without addressing this economic backdrop is akin to treating the symptom while ignoring the disease.
That is a manufactured world that we do not have to be living within such boundaries and other such frameworks, thus.. making populations the instruments, to the governmentsâ âconductorâ.
iow, none of what you said happened, had to happen.
Things do not have to be the way they are.. things are being pushed in that direction.
Economic capitalism destroys the entire world, it destroys the national homelands of people that forces them to immigrate to begin with and it destroys the very nations all the people are immigrating to. Thatâs the kind of system you support on a global scale.
Thereâs no reason beyond profit as to why these international corporations need to even exist at all. For most of humanityâs history we did fine having independent national economies trading with one another while retaining nationalism. Then with the advent of economic globalism created by these international conglomerates have wrecked all of these national economies one by one.
At this rate weâre going to wreck and ruin all the nation states of the entire world in the name of global capital or profit.
Agreed, but the standard marxist rhethoric doesnât help because revolution always goes badly wrong. The revolutionists often donât change the direction society is going, only who has advantages. Revolutionists are narrow-minded, simplistic thinkers, who just like the nazis have simple answers for complex questions.
It is much the same within environmental circles. The conversation cannot be reduced to carbon dioxide levels alone, as if climate change were only a matter of counting emissions. The deeper concern is the ongoing destruction of ecosystems, the collapse of biodiversity, and the erosion of the very foundations that make human and non-human life possible. COâ is part of the picture, but the real danger lies in undermining the intricate web of relationships that sustain clean air, fertile soil, stable weather, and the delicate balance of life itself.
Our world is in disarray in countless ways, and yet we often cling to the illusion that we can continue living as we do without consequence. But if we insist on this pathâstripping the earth, exhausting its soils and seas, and destabilising its climateâhumanity will not endure for much longer. The planet itself will survive, of course, though it may take millennia to restore its balance. From the planetâs perspective, our absence could even be a reprieve. In a few hundred thousand years, when traces of our cities have crumbled back into the ground, it is entirely possible that another species will emerge to take our place, flourishing in a world that no longer remembers us.
I agree civilization collapse is very possible, weâre getting closer with each passing year, but for me waiting around doing nothing is an equally worse prospect hence the revolutionary mindset.
Itâs clear to me we cannot vote our way out of the situation and when liberal democracy fails or collapses politically, then what? What becomes the next action of recourse?
These are issues that neoliberals never address because theyâre too inconvenient, itâs one of my many problems with neoliberals.
Both oilfags and capitalists and Marxists cause immigration.
1: The oilfags try to keep the world poor and off of sustainable energy. The folks in poor nations (global south usually) want to immigrate to northern countries.
Granted, without the oilfags keepinâ em down, they would still be poor, and poorer than northern nations, just not in abject poverty, and there would certainly be less of them trying to immigrate.
2: Capitalists love immigration because they can pay low wages and deny employee benefits. So they naturally vote for policies and politicians to support it
3: Marxists support immigration because Marx is basically Jesus and its a Jesus sounding thing to do.
When you say sustainable energy, what does that mean exactly?
Yes, capitalists love cheap labor and depressed wages for the working class, thatâs something indicative of capitalism not Marxism, socialism, or communism.
No, a Marxist would enforce a national border because most Marxists are nationalists like myself unless theyâre psycho Trotskyists which is something completely different. Under an economic socialist system there is no need for foreign mass immigration. It is only in capitalism do we see a monopoly on labor and depressing working class wages that makes foreign mass immigration possible.
Two different camps of Marxist communists, national communism versus global communism. Big difference between the two.
Most communists are nationalists.
No simple answer like âthis or thatâ, black or white.
Yet, itâs obvious that itâs only to capitalist countries that people are allowed to immigrate. Itâs not like they have many options in the few remaining socialist countries, anyway.
There are many factors that come into play in this topic, ie, as reasons for mass immigration:
a) better working conditions;
b) higher wages;
c) opportunities in education ;
d) to reunite with oneâs family;
e) to escape war or environmental disasters.
The people who immigrate are approximately as guilty for searching for amelioration in their life conditions as the natives are guilty for wanting the same. That there must be a limit is obvious. Itâs also obvious that [poor] people are disposable in capitalism. The real tragedy is that immigrants are preferred scapegoats since forever. An easy target for hatred and revolt that would or could be better directed elsewhere.
An interesting quote from Marx here:
â(âŚ) And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the âpoor whitesâ to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.â
I contend that Marx himself perverted Socialism, and that Capital profits from this perversion.
Socialism was not an ideal, it was a method. (Leveraging ones necessity to capital against Capital.)
Marx made it into an ideology; âWe Shall Be The New Rulersâ.
What âweâ?
Previously, there were distinct, real, organizations of real workers. Suddenly âthe workerâ was an abstraction and all actual workers were subservient to this.
As for Neocons, there is an increasingly popular talking point that the Neocons were originally Trotskyites.
Traditionally, socialism has been an ideal above all else. A social and political vision of a fairer, more equal society where production and resources are collectively controlled or shared rather than concentrated in private hands. It has always been driven by ethical and utopian principles.
While socialism has also generated methods such as collective bargaining, nationalisation, redistribution policies, cooperative ownership and syndicalist strategies, these methods are expressions of the ideal. Therefore, to claim that âsocialism was not an ideal, it was a methodâ is to invert the historical truth. It ignores the ideological and moral currents that gave rise to these methods.
Your statement âleveraging oneâs necessity to capital against capitalâ seems to be an attempt to repurpose Marxist terminology (necessity as in the workerâs necessity to sell labour and capital as in accumulated ownership). However, this distorts Marxâs ideas because, for him, capital depends on labour, not the reverse. Workers arenât âleveragingâ necessity; they are forced by necessity to sell their labour in order to survive.
Therefore, in Marxist terms, socialism is not simply a clever âleveraging strategyâ within capitalism, it is a structural and ideological alternative that aims to abolish the domination of capital. Your phrasing collapses the major distinction between the condition of workers inside capitalism and the project of socialism to overcome it.
Extremely capitalist nations allow people to immigrate to their nations because they need a constant surplus population of workers to exploit in order to make profit. Those foreign immigrant workers get thrown into the meat grinder or wood chipper of cheap exploited labor just like everybody else.
There really isnât higher wages for foreign workers any more than there is for native domestic workers, for the most part foreign workers take advantage of currency trading in those dollars are worth more in their own currencies of their own national homelands so when they send them abroad back home to their nations of origin they essentially quadruple their money by that of international currency exchange rates.
Most of the war being waged around the planet is being done by western capitalists, a majority of wars are banker wars where a group of wealthy men are trying to acquire the resources or territories of others.
The difference between a foreign and native worker is that where the native worker works it is their home or in many cases they work out of their own national homeland. The foreign worker leaves their homeland to take up residence in somebody elseâs. The native worker overtime becoming inundated by foreign workers becomes a minority in his own land of residence, the foreign worker doesnât share that same fate, they can go back to their national homeland abroad whenever they want to where they still comprise the majority.
It is true that the native and foreign worker has the same enemy, the capitalists that are exploiting them both, but there is no unification of the two because of the language barriers that exist.
Where I work at in real life on any given day there is six different languages being spoken all at once and the only way to get any work done at all in my international company is to have six different English interpreters of Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Filipino, Indonesian, and so on. When workers cannot even talk to each other or communicate any united front against capitalists becomes virtually impossible. People like Jeff Bezos knows this bragging about how a largely foreign workforce makes any kind of organized laborer or working unions impossible. They also like it when the foreign workers are unable to speak English or the native tongue of the nations they reside in because it makes them more easily controllable, discourages them for leaving elsewhere, and makes them totally unaware or ignorant of the environment theyâre in to even know theyâre being exploited to begin with.
There was one particular industrial capitalist of the nineteenth century that said something to the effect of:
âWith enough money I could pay half the workforce to slaughter and kill the other half.â
With the native and foreign workforce itâs simply the weaponization of one against the other. While that conflict continues the capitalist reigns in a majority of the money or wealth for themselves.
Nonetheless that quote from Marx you utilized there negates nothing at all, it still talks about how foreign workers are utilized to depress the wages of the native domestic workers. Thereâs simply no way getting around the issue. Unlike 18th century England itâs a much greater issue today now in 2025.
You mean at the call center? Where you sit on your ass all day and post Youtube music videos?
It is impossible to explain to brainless animals that any Ń Ń Ń ISM is masturbation of thinking.
I will ask a question so that even a very stupid brute understands. What difference does it make which hand to jerk off, right or left? What is the difference between Marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism? There is power and there are stupid brainless slaves, at the expense of which the power parasitizes. And the last question.
Arenât you tired of masturbating?
Heâs spamming the board daily with this nonsense, and others actually buy into it.
A lot of his text is A.I. generated, not difficult to discern.
âWhat difference does it make which hand to jerk off, right or left? What is the difference between Marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism?â
Nothing. Theyâre all unjustified forms of restriction and authority over the individual! I do not step shyly back from your proprietor! Property, i meant. Well, technically, I wouldnât step shyly back from your proprietor either, but i think human proprietorship was abolished a few hundred years ago.
