Author’s Note: From the left-wing perspective – a three-pronged strategy should be employed which consists of:
a) The full restoration of the 1948 Labour model of Socialism in the UK.
b) The care of the migrant at the point of contact in the UK.
c) The rejection of the bourgeois (anti-Socialist) strategy that simultaneously deprives the domestic UK working-class of its Socialism – and generates the international conditions (such as war and sanctions) that creates the need for mass migration.
The far-right, being racist, will hate and reject any form of foreigner. The far-right also supports the complete removal of all Socialism in the UK. The far-rights adheres to a malignant mystical policy which suggests that with the absence of migrants equals the presence of plenty. This is an inverted (religious) mentality which can be seen in Adolf Hitler’s refusal to acknowledge his material defeat on the ground – whilst believing that a “miracle” would manifest “out-of-nothing” and alter the balance of power in his favour. When this did not occur (and Hitler was proven wrong) he took the coward’s way-out. The far-right are the foot-soldiers of the bourgeoisie – which uses the fascists to attack the left. The left, of course, as the only engine of genuine change within society, is kept suppressed and on the periphery of society. The bourgeoisie does everything in its power to maintain its control of the means of production (and forces of production). Flooding the system with mass migrants is part of this strategy – as it dilutes the bargaining power of the collective (unionised) British working-class (the differig ethnic groups compete with one another for ever-decreasing scraps from the bourgeois table – bypassing all notions of Socialist “Internationalism”). The bourgeoisie will permit a certain amount of “migrant hate” and encourage this through its deliberately antagonising policies. When the right becomes too embolden – and this resentment seeps into the left – the establishment will initiate draconian arrest and imprisonment pogroms. In recent years, this policy of playing the right off with the left (to maintain the centre) has back-fired in the development of a mass right-wing movement that appears to be on the brink of electoral political power. The far-right will abolish all Socialism and all migrants (except the “White” variant). The NHS will not be reconstructed – but completely abolished, and so on. Whereas migrants can be managed to be Socialist – the far-right is the eternal enemy of the working-class. ACW (17.9.2026)
From a philosophical-biological perspective, the term “migrant” is a combination of random letters forming a specific word. In and of itself, this word has no inherent meaning (like all words). Language have evolved out of throatal noises – coupled with corresponding (evolutionary) development of the brain structure in response to environmental challenges. As human groups left Africa around 70,000 years ago, and split into isolated groups, language structure diversified so that the various groups eventually developed to the point were each expressed throatal noises only their “in-group” could understand. Although the (biological) language acquisition mechanism remains the same (in essence) – the way the language is expressed – differs (taking-on various and culturally distinct elements). Therefore, the word “migrant” will possess a “literal” and an “emotive” meaning. The literal meaning may drift over long periods of time, but the literal meaning is relatively stable from one generation to the next (words in modern times tend to be kept constant in their meaning through national education programmes). The emotive influence stems from many particular aspects of culture – including the “political”. Political trends can project any and all subsidiary (and even contradictory) meanings upon a word that in itself might be fairly neutral in its definition.
A “migrant” is an individual who phyically “displaces” from one geographical location to another. This is how the act of “migration” occurs. Unlike a “visit”, or a “holiday” – a migrant suffers an “uprooting” from one-place (due to many disrupting reasons) and is forced to move to another location. Indeed, the word “migrant” – which derives from the Latin verb “migrāre” – literally means “to move, depart, or change one’s place of residence”. In the contemporary sense, this word suggests an “impoverishment” of an individual or a group of individuals – who-which are forced to migrate from one-place to another – at the financial expense of the receiving location. From this financial support (within a capitalist system), all goods and services within the receiving culture are accessed. The sense of “injustice” stems from the fact that the lumpen proletariat of the receiving culture have to work, receive pay, and pay their taxes to access these same goods and services (indeed, the indigenous population is “limited” to the goods and services they can access at anyone time by the level of pay they receive, their class, politics, gender, age, and physical fitness, etc). All these elements conspire to keep the indigenous population in their place and to access as few resources as possible.
Of course, the rich, who are generally a minority within the host society, are able to access all resources and services as and when they wish. In the modern context, the lumpen proletariat associate the incoming migrants to be a group that is unjustly “privileged” by a political elite (that does not care about its own working-class) – raising the status of a migrant to that of the rich. This situation is compounded (in the UK) by the withdrawal of the Socialist System (financed by taxation) – which benefitted the working-class since 1948 – which saw the indigenous population receiving the type of benefits now only received by incoming migrants. The political elite perpetuate a certain mythology surrounding the concept of migration. A migrant is an “apoliticised” individual (or group) who suddenly materialises out of nowhere and who is morally entitled to every assistance a host society can provide. To deny or question this narrative can result in warnings, arrests, charging, and/or imprisonment, etc, methods used as coercive measures (conform or suffer the consequences). The lumpen proletariat must a) willingly give-up their Socialist Rights within a capitalist society, and b) transfer those Rights toward facilitating a migrant resettlement project.
The problem with this definition is that the concept of a modern “migrant” is not politically “neutral”. A migrant is displaced by war, famine, illness, and economic hardship – much of which stems from the disruptive foreign policies perpetuated by the political establishment. Migration is quite often heavily politicised – as the acceptance of the individual migrant is used by the government and the media – to equate to the acceptance (a priori) of the political cause associated with the migrant. Migrants from regimes the UK government prefers are welcomed with open-armed – whilst migrants from opposing regimes (or political) views are excluded. The UK has a long history of importing migrants from regimes that oppose Socialism. The government (and establishment) do not want the taxpayer to understand or grasp the real situation and reduces it instead to a simplistic “either-or” argument. The issue is twofold – rejecting the coercive political situation becomes conflated to rejecting the migrant. Rejecting the migrant is equated with an “immoral” decision.
The State manipulation should be obvious. The racist right-wing rejects migration as a concept and it does not matter where they are from (although White migrants might be acceptable). The left-wing is equally trapped in accepting all migrants (although there may be a resistance to White migrants from right-wing regimes). The contemporary far-left is stuck in an ideological trap. On the one-hand it is fully aware of the dialectical argument I have laid-out above – on the other it does not want to open itself to allegations of “racism” by exposing this situation. For instance, there is an absolute silence regarding the fact that many migrants travel to the UK as cheap labour (the economic argument) – and that this is a structured attack upon the economic security of the British working-class. The Bourgeois State has carefully stage-managed this entire affair and their is a type of moral paralyse in operation where the care of the individual migrant acts as a form of blackmail to ensure that the entire edifice of bourgeoise policy that justifies the presence of the migrant is upheld and perpetuated. The only logical approach appears to be “care” at the point of contact with the migrant – whilst opposing the over-all policy and strategy of the bourgeoisie. Internationalism is a sound (beneficial) co-operation (not a selfish or destructive competitiveness) between the unionised workers inhabiting either bourgeois or Socialist Nation States. The caveat is that there should eventually be a world-wide Revolution that sees the Socialist State (a temporary but necessary construct) transition into the “non-State” condition of “Communism”.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 