The St. George’s Committee’s ongoing educational and outreach work is challenging “institutionalised Anglophobia.”

SAINT GEORGE’S DAY – 23^rd April – is just around the corner. Therefore, the National Liberal Party thinks that it’s both timely and appropriate to highlight some of the recent educational and outreach work carried out by the St. George’s Committee – SGC (1).

We were particularly interested in the launch of the SGCs United By St. George! campaign. A spokeswoman from the group outlined the idea behind the campaign which is designed to highlight and challenge “institutionalised Anglophobia”.

Here’s what she had to say:

“The St. George’s Committee – SGC – believes that there’s a campaign of institutionalised Anglophobia. This is where the establishment seems to portray any pride in England and the English in a wholly negative and derogatory manner.

One form of attack on the English is to say that we’re ‘too insular’. We find that hard to believe. The latest official government estimate (2017) of the population of England is 54,786,300 – although we presume that this figure includes non-English as well. (2) We’re not even sure if the true extent of the English diaspora is known. However, let’s say that there’s another 54 million people around the world who are of English ancestry. That gives us over 100 million people.

Now it’s entirely possible that some of these 100 million folks would be shy and retiring – or ‘insular’ – whilst others would be outgoing. But to say that the English as a whole are ‘too insular’ is a sweeping generalisation. And whilst the English are not a race – we’re an ethnic grouping – some would say that this sweeping generalisation as almost racist in tone.

On this point, surely it’s up to a nation and its people if it wants to be ‘insular’ or not. Indeed, since when has it been a crime to be shy and retiring – or ‘insular?’

Another form of attack is to say that St. George wasn’t English. We’ve seen a few theories as to his background – but the most popular is that he was a Roman officer of Palestinian and Greek descent. We’re totally ok with that.

However, England isn’t the only nation to have a non-indigenous Patron Saint. For instance, St. Patrick was probably Welsh – and not Irish. But does anyone attack the folks of Ulster and Éire (and the rest of the world for that matter!) who’re out celebrating St. Patrick’s Day? Also, St. Piran is the Patron Saint of Cornwall, but it’s believed that he was Irish. But does anyone begrudge the Cornish celebrating him? On a similar note, St. Andrew was thought to have been born in Galilee. However, no-one seems to have a problem with the Scots enjoying themselves towards the end of November.

We’re not aware of anyone questioning the legitimacy of St, Patrick, St. Piran or St. Andrew. So why pick on the English and our right to celebrate St. George? Again, we feel that it’s a form of Anglophobia.”

With all of this in mind, the St. George’s Committee has so far produced two pieces of artwork (see above) which challenge institutionalised Anglophobia. At the same time, they know that some people – including the well-known English advocate Tony Linsell, author of the thought-provoking An English Nationalism (3) – have even questioned the very existence of St. George. They also acknowledge that St. George is celebrated by many different people around the world. Again, the SGC is “cool” with this and has actually made the theme of their campaign United By St. George!

As the SGC spokeswoman noted:

“We feel that the English are singled out and attacked because St. George is not English. But are the Irish, Cornish or Scots attacked in the same way? No.

In fact, St. George is celebrated by many people and nations, including Portugal, Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Macedonia. We’ve absolutely no problem with that.

In fact, we decided to look at this issue – of a ‘shared’ St. George – in our educational and outreach work. Therefore, under the slogan United By St. George! we’ve so far produced two pieces of artwork. The first relates to Aragon and the second to Catalonia.

Without getting too involved in Spanish internal politics – many in Aragon and Catalonia want independence (4) and claim that they’re distinct nations – St. George’s Day is enthusiastically celebrated on 23^rd April.

It’s a public holiday in Aragon (and is known as the Day of Aragon – Día de Aragon) where it’s a day off for the general population, and schools and most businesses are closed (5). Celebrations are held all across Aragon and especially in the capital city of Zaragoza (known as Saragossa in English).

St. George’s Day is also celebrated in Catalonia (6) where he is known as Sant Jordi. Indeed, in Catalonia, perhaps his greatest act – slaying the dragon – is set in Montblanc, capital of the comarca (county) Conca de Barberà, which is several miles from the Catalan capital, Barcelona.

Although not a public holiday in Catalonia, the 23^rd April sees many people out on the streets. This is because Catalans view St. George’s Day as the most romantic day of the year. Since the 15th century, it has been known as Lover’s Day (dia dels enamorats) or the Day of the Rose when lovers are supposed to give a red rose to their sweethearts. Since the 1930’s, a tradition is also to give a book to loved ones (7-9).

A sprig of wheat is often tied to a rose with a piece of red and yellow striped ribbon. This symbolizes the Senyera, a red and yellow striped flag. This is an ancient symbol of Catalonia and you can see it incorporated into our England & Catalonia – United By St. George! poster.

It’ll probably come as no surprise to say that Barcelona – the capital of Catalonia – really goes all out to celebrate St. George’s Day/El Diada de Sant Jordi. Here the streets are packed and many buildings are lavishly decorated with red roses. I’m sure that this year will be no exception.”

To conclude, the St. George’s Committee spokeswoman wondered how the Establishment (in other countries where St. George is the Patron Saint) viewed those who took part in their respective St. George’s Day celebrations. In particular, what was the attitude of the metropolitan elite in each nation?

She also wished everyone (English and non-English alike) an early Happy St. George’s Day and encouraged local communities to put on family-friendly celebrations in an attempt to emulate those held in the Stone Cross area of West Bromwich – https://www.facebook.com/stgeorge.day/ – which are reputed to be the biggest in the world!

NATIONAL LIBERALS advocate a return to small nations, environmentally sustainable communities and co-operative private enterprises. We also believe in true democracy, decentralisation, sound money, land reform and animal welfare. We are very much opposed to statism, imperialist wars and global corporations.

We promote these ideas via our various publications, the production of e-posters and by hosting debates. With this in mind, English Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party in England – is interested in looking at ways in which we govern ourselves. In particular, how can we move away from a system where we are ruled by a professional political class and move towards a system of popular (and truly representative) rule?

To possibly answer this question, our attention was drawn towards an article – https://theswamp.media/how-to-stop-politicians-lying-guillotines-and-localism – by Johnny Vedmore which appeared in The Swamp, which appears to be a online publication which ‘examines the crazy but true world of Politics.’

This article is written from a UK perspective – indeed, the author notes that every ‘UK region must take their power back from London’. However, we feel that it’s particularly applicable to England, as it’s the only nation in the UK that doesn’t have its own Parliament or Assembly.

English Voice invites its readers to carefully examine Mr. Vedmore’s article. Is autonomy and localism the way to go – if so, how do we ensure that those who inhabit the ‘Westminster bubble’ really do relinquish their powers? And even more importantly, how do we dismantle the Capitalist system which they serve?

Let us know what you think. Share your thoughts when this article is reproduced on either of our two Facebook sites – National Liberals https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ and National Liberal Party https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Johnny Vedmore, The Swamp, English Voice and the National Liberal Party.

.

How to Stop Politicians Lying! Guillotines and Localism? Every UK region must take their power back from London.

Can Localism really bring power to the people? If so, how do we ensure that those who inhabit the ‘Westminster bubble’ really do relinquish their powers? And even more importantly, how do we dismantle the Capitalist system which they serve?

IF I WERE to describe to you all the feelings that I experience when I watch the UK Conservative party lie to parliament, I would say it is like a burning volcanic eruption inside my rib cage, moving upwards towards my epiglottis. Then, when the Tories are prevented from being called dishonest by the out of touch parliamentary rules, my head explodes and I scream uncontrollably for the return of the guillotine.

I don’t think I’m alone in being angered by how politicians of every party are allowed to tell lies in the House of Commons with impunity. Dishonesty is surely the enemy of a cohesive society, as are guillotines. And as it stands, our society is already officially split approximately 50/50 on all of the most important matters of state. We don’t need dishonesty or guillotines dividing us any further.

We need to have an honest system if we are going to create a better society, and the ability to call out dishonesty is essential if social stability and cultural enlightenment are on our agenda. But that isn’t the system we have. We have a system that rewards dishonesty, one that does not call out shady conduct within our official governmental bodies. Our society is fractured by constant deceitful behaviour.

The reason these officials continue to lie is because no one in political office is held legally responsible for their fraudulent activities. There is a simple way to solve this glaring absence of responsibility; we could make them legally accountable. But, I hear the mob cry, that won’t see any sort of justice for the many decades of lies which have already been told. So maybe what we really need is retroactive legal powers to pursue those who have benefited from lying in political office over the past 50 years. I’m not calling for previous political giants to be guillotined, rather I’m simply suggesting the we should see Tony Blair’s war crimes as a serious breach of office, or Iain Duncan Smith’s systematic abuse of disabled benefit claimants as unthinkable and illegal.

But if we were to remove dishonesty from politics, I truly believe that our governmental systems wouldn’t miraculously morph into some form of political utopia. Instead we would just confirm that humans lie a lot. The system isn’t necessarily responsible for the deceitful behaviour of the people who are part of it. The chaos of the whole is more likely to be a reflection of the character of its constituent pieces, the lying humans. Changing the system won’t stop bad people lying, laws and regulatory bodies won’t stop naughty people fibbing, and even the threat of the guillotine won’t stop the usual suspects from twisting the truth. A liar will lie whatever system we have, or punishment we dole out. There are no possible political formations that will change how human beings have acted since the dawn of time.

The solution? We should turn our backs on large soulless forms of governmental organisations and concentrate on a local compassionate networks of representation. The reason I believe this to be part of the solution is very simple. If you’re close to the people you govern, if you share your life with the humans that you represent, you will be much less likely to deceive them. Well to do folks who are lost inside the Westminster bubble are so detached from the realities of most of the people that they supposedly represent that it becomes almost impossible for them to act honestly. They have the pressures of party loyalty, lobbyists, and antiquated tradition to distract them from their primary objective, which is to represent their local constituents. A modern form of localism may be the best way to bring some sort of accountability and honesty into politics.

So firstly, every region of the United Kingdom must take their sovereignty back from London. This country is different wherever you go. You may find that the high streets of most British cities are almost carbon copies of each other. But when you scratch the surface of any city or town in the UK, you reveal an amazing tapestry of cultures with such startling variety. The Yam Yams of Wolverhampton are different from the YoYos of Birmingham. Scousers and Mancunians almost see themselves as different races, yet they’re barely 40 miles apart. Geordies, Taffy’s, Brizzle folk, Scotsmen, the Cornish are all dying to keep their peoples cultures alive and well. But instead of advancing our own cultures, we are being forced to morph into a version of the English capital, including adopting its crime, its ethics, and its globalistic vision for the future, a vision that could all but destroy local cultural diversity.

We all seem to desire independence from institutions that rule us from afar. Every region of this fantastic country needs to reclaim their independence from London. This isn’t about dividing our country; it’s about rediscovering our local cultures and celebrating our amazingly unique Island.

We are becoming what we’ve consumed for too many years. We have been on a London based diet culturally speaking, and it has left us obese and unsatisfied. We should go local.

• ALSO CHECK OUT

English Voice Debate (1) – Independence For England? http://nationalliberal.org/english-voice-debate-1-%e2%80%93-independence-for-england …

English Voice Debate (2) – Towards An English Parliament? http://nationalliberal.org/english-voice-debate-2-–-towards-an-english-parliament …

• Read English Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party in England. To get hold of issues 1 and 2 simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com and ask for your FREE pdf copies!

WELCOME to the first debate hosted by Liberty & Nation – the voice of the National Liberal Party.

Several months ago, 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg staged a solo protest outside the Swedish parliament. Since then, a growing number of schoolkids have been attending ‘Fridays for Future’ strikes. In fact, the climate action movement has seen around 70,000 children per week striking and marching in 270 cities around the world.

National Liberals are deeply interested in the environment. Indeed, as our artwork notes: ‘We believe that it’s the duty of man to live in harmony with nature and not destroy it. We need to live a more sustainable way of life – being less greedy, being less wasteful, using less natural resources and knowing where our food comes from. We feel that this will lead to a more rewarding, healthy, considerate and possibly ‘simpler’ life.’

National Liberals are also deeply interested in Self-Determination. But to achieve true Self-Determination we need to achieve Food Sovereignty. This means a move away from the global food system (which is dominated by corporations and market institutions) and move towards a system that is run by – and for – those who produce, distribute and consume food.

With all this in mind our attention was recently drawn to an article about Permaculture – https://greennews.ie/how-a-permaculture-farm-produces-more-per-hectare-without-pesticides-chemical-fertilizers-and-mechanization-than-a-farm-that-practices-intensive-farming/?fbclid=IwAR0uSmgr9IkgnpjGC_79hBHOS-Qq5iM02bAWo25wwnS_B4dKEYkx22VmVQg – which was written by Marie Daffe and published over two years ago in the Dublin-based Green News.

So what is Permaculture and can it ensure Self-Determination & Food Sovereignty? Bill Mollison (1928 – 2016) who is regarded as one of the founders of Permaculture, described it thus:

“Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system”

Liberty & Nation invites its readers to consider the article below and to examine if Permaculture could help us ahieve Self-Determination and Food Sovereignty. Readers are then invited to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on either of our two Facebook sites – National Liberals https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ and National Liberal Party https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Marie Daffe, Green News, Liberty & Nation and the National Liberal Party.

.

National Liberals believe in a more self-sufficient and rooted way of life - Small Is Beautiful! Of particular importance to us is Self-Determination and food sovereignty. We need to build the home market and get away from transporting food half way around the world. Permaculture may provide us a way to, ultimately, improve the health and wellbeing of our peoples – and thus the health and wellbeing of our nations.

THE IDEA of permaculture was conceptualized in the 70′s in Australia by the environmentalists Bill Mollison and David Holmgren. Its main goal is to create human installations modelled on natural ecosystems. Nature is the ultimate inspiration. The concept still can sound vague today, as it is usually seen as an agricultural technique only. It is actually more a conceptual and an holistic approach, based on three essential ethical principles.

The three ethical principles of Permaculture are:

• Earth care

• People care

• Fair share of resources and surplus

Permaculture puts emphasis on useful connections between all the elements of the garden, including human. It determines how and where they have to be placed to achieve maximum productivity. It thus gives a major role to the design of the garden, whose synergy is absolutely crucial. Practicing permaculture requires taking time. Being able to create the perfect arrangement is indeed first a matter of observation and reflexion. The result will be optimal if the whole system is well thought: interactions between elements will be maximized, so does the productivity, while the need for inputs and energy will also be reduced.

Permaculture is first of all a matter of common sense. Some people practicing it without even knowing it. Here are of the key features Perrine and Charles Hervé-Gruyer highlight in their book Permaculture: heal the Earth, feed people (in French only) (1). The couple are running the Bec Hellouin Farm (2), a pioneer farm of permaculture in Normandy, France. They have received a massive coverage after appearing in the famous ecological documentary Demain (Tomorrow) and the place is now visited by people from all over the world.

• In nature, everything is connected

• Ecosystems work cyclically

• Each element benefits to the others and receives from them

• The waste of one is the resource of the other

• Everything is recycled

• Each important function is filled by several elements, and each element potentially fulfils several functions

• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

• Each ecosystem operates largely autonomously and contributes to the entire biosphere

Find out the practical application of these principles in the below video, shot at the Bec Hellouin Farm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNreOaTK4BU

Quality of the soil is actually the main key of productivity. Having a good soil takes time but is the basis of everything. Permaculture makes it possible to create humus and thus to restore the soil, while traditional agriculture destroys it (4), contributing in particular to its erosion. In fact, traditional agriculture simply feed plants with chemical fertilizers but stopped feeding the soil a long time ago. Mechanization also contributes to the destruction of soils. Recreating fertile soil is possible, but only on small areas, because it requires precisely to work without mechanization.

The Hervé-Gruyer couple realized when they started their farm that their soil was actually quite bad to grow vegetables. They took a couple of years to conscientiously restore it and to make it fertile, thanks to the supply in large quantity of organic matter such as compost, manure and mulch. Today they grow more than 800 different kinds of fruits and vegetables at the farm.

Nicky Kyle also insists on the crucial role of soil in plant growth. She is co-founder and a director of the Organic Trust (5) and was one of the speakers at the launch of the People4Soil campaign (6), supported by the Environmental Pillar (7), December last. With forty years of experience in growing organic vegetables, she explained how exhausted soils can be restored. Even if she doesn’t claim to practice permaculture, she is clearly implementing its principles. First of all: never leaving the soil uncovered. Mulch and compost are the best allies when it comes to protect and nurture soil. Nicky Kyle also gives a great importance to the cropping plan. Crops rotations and cultures associations are designed to maximize productivity, thanks to the mutual benefits they bring to each other. Each plot contains multiple vegetables. So where the intensive agriculture grows only one kind of plant, permaculture grows three of four kinds at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLMgrW1sWRliAY_Fs26nqbw7p05K8_libk&v=jjN30StFsf0

Permaculture supporters are truly convinced that this kind of production is the future of agriculture, as it can fulfil a lot of purposes. As the Hervé-Gruyer explain in their book: “We produce much on a small area, while creating jobs, making the environment richer, soils more fertile and while stocking carbon and preserving biodiversity.” Knowing that we will soon be 10 billion human beings on the planet and that extensive agriculture is anything but sustainable, permaculture farming might be the solution. It is necessary to come back to a local production, in small farms like the Bec Hellouin or even in a context of urban agriculture, very trendy right now. To take back control on our food and not depend anymore on a globalized intensive agriculture is essential, for our health and the nature’s. But it would take a lot of people to go back to the countryside and become peasants as their ancestors were. A return to earth in short.

1. https://www.actes-sud.fr/catalogue/ecologie-developpement-durable/permaculture
2. http://www.fermedubec.com/en/
3. https://www.demain-lefilm.com/en
4. http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Farmland_the_size_of_Italy_lost_each_year_UN_report_999.html
5. http://organictrust.ie/
6. http://greennews.ie/a-campaign-to-protect-irelands-soils-has-been-launched-people4soil/
7. https://environmentalpillar.ie/

• Read Liberty & Nation – the voice of the National Liberal Party. To get hold of issues 1 – 4 simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com and ask for your FREE pdf copies!

WELCOME TO the second part of our article Trade Unionists Against Mass Immigration. It should be read directly on from part 1 http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-national-liberal-trade-unionists-–-trade-unionists-against-mass-immigration-part-1 Written by Angela Nagle for American Affairs, it was originally entitled The Left Case Against Open Borders – https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

Whilst National Liberal Trade Unionists – NLTU – hold a position that goes way beyond Capitalism and Socialism, we are interested in building a consensus with those who recognise that mass immigration is basically a form of mass slavery. However, it’s particularly interesting to see that some sections of the ‘Left’ are now coming to realise that it’s not ‘racist’ nor ‘reactionary’ to want to restrict – or limit in some way – immigration.

Nagle’s article references the early ‘importation of low-paid Irish immigrants to England.’ However, modern day Trade Unionists will probably be more familiar with the events of the late-1940s when thousands of wage-slaves were imported from the West Indies to replace the indigenous British (but mainly English) folk who had died in the Second World War. This was a method of creating a new menial workforce and stabilising the capitalist economy on behalf of the profiteering ruling class – the original ‘elite’.

Today, contemporary migration – driven by Globalisation – serves the interests of the banks and corporations. One of the reasons why so many British workers voted for Brexit is because they regard ‘open borders’ as a nightmare situation. In fact, it’s a disaster for ordinary people everywhere – not least the poorer countries which are being deprived of much needed skilled workers and technicians. The NLTU also feels that there’s a lot of merit to the argument that encouraging workers to seek better wages abroad is also a way of closing down opposition to exploitation and oppression in these poorer countries.

With all of this in mind, and in the spirit of comradeship, free speech and open debate, we feature Angela Nagle’s article below. As usual, everything is up for discussion. Therefore, readers are invited to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on the NLTU Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231 – and the NLP Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ It goes without saying that there are no official links between Angela Nagle, American Affairs, the NLTU and the National Liberal Party. Please note that the NLTU has kept the original US spelling and phrases as they are.

.

The Left Case Against Open Borders – By Angela Nagle (Part 2)

Useful Idiots

Angela Nagle (left) says that Karl Marx (right) held a position on immigration which would get him banished from the modern Left. The NLTU believes that many on the left confuse Globalisation with Internationalism. There’s also a deliberate conflation of socialist internationalism with liberal cosmopolitanism. Indeed, the left’s support for ‘freedom of movement’ has been the biggest joke of the last few years. It proves that the middle class has effectively taken over leftist politics, because ‘freedom of movement’ can only benefit the bosses!

The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders has long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right. Drawing from neoclassical economists, these groups have advocated for liberalizing migration on the grounds of market rationality and economic freedom. They oppose limits on migration for the same reasons that they oppose restrictions on the movement of capital. The Koch- funded Cato Institute, which also advocates lifting legal restrictions on child labor, has churned out radical open borders advocacy for decades, arguing that support for open borders is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, and “Forget the wall already, it’s time for the U.S. to have open borders.” (1) The Adam Smith Institute has done much the same, arguing that “immigration restrictions make us poorer.” (2)

Following Reagan and figures like Milton Friedman, George W. Bush championed liberalizing migration before, during, and after his presidency. Grover Norquist, a zealous advocate of Trump’s (and Bush’s and Reagan’s) tax cuts, has for years railed against the illiberalism of the trade unions, reminding us, “Hostility to immigration has traditionally been a union cause. (3)

He’s not wrong. From the first law restricting immigration in 1882 to Cesar Chavez and the famously multiethnic United Farm Workers protesting against employers’ use and encouragement of illegal migration in 1969, trade unions have often opposed mass migration. They saw the deliberate importation of illegal, low-wage workers as weakening labor’s bargaining power and as a form of exploitation. There is no getting around the fact that the power of unions relies by definition on their ability to restrict and withdraw the supply of labor, which becomes impossible if an entire workforce can be easily and cheaply replaced.  Open borders and mass immigration are a victory for the bosses.

And the bosses almost universally support it. Mark Zuckerberg’s think tank and lobbying organization, Forward, which advocates for liberalizing migration policies, lists among its “founders and funders” Eric Schmidt and Bill Gates, as well as CEOs and senior executives of YouTube, Dropbox, Airbnb, Netflix, Groupon, Walmart, Yahoo, Lyft, Instagram, and many others. The cumulative personal wealth represented on this list is enough to heavily influence most governing institutions and parliaments, if not buy them outright. While often celebrated by progressives, the motivations of these “liberal” billionaires are clear. Their generosity toward dogmatically anti-labor Republicans, like Jeff Flake of the famous “Gang of Eight” bill, should come as no surprise.

Admittedly, union opposition to mass migration was sometimes intermingled with racism (which was present across American society) in previous eras. What is omitted in libertarian attempts to smear trade unions as “the real racists,” however, is that in the days of strong trade unions, they were also able to use their power to mount campaigns of international solidarity with workers’ movements around the world. Unions raised the wages of millions of nonwhite members, while deunionization today is estimated to cost black American men $50 a week. (4)

During the Reagan neoliberal revolution, union power was dealt a blow from which it has never recovered, and wages have stagnated for decades. Under this pressure, the Left itself has undergone a transformation. In the absence of a powerful workers’ movement, it has remained radical in the sphere of culture and individual freedom, but can offer little more than toothless protests and appeals to noblesse oblige in the sphere of economics.

With obscene images of low-wage migrants being chased down as criminals by ICE, others drowning in the Mediterranean, and the worrying growth of anti-immigrant sentiment across the world, it is easy to see why the Left wants to defend illegal migrants against being targeted and victimized. And it should. But acting on the correct moral impulse to defend the human dignity of migrants, the Left has ended up pulling the front line too far back, effectively defending the exploitative system of migration itself.

Today’s well-intentioned activists have become the useful idiots of big business. With their adoption of “open borders” advocacy—and a fierce moral absolutism that regards any limit to migration as an unspeakable evil—any criticism of the exploitative system of mass migration is effectively dismissed as blasphemy. Even solidly leftist politicians, like Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, are accused of “nativism” by critics if they recognize the legitimacy of borders or migration restriction at any point. This open borders radicalism ultimately benefits the elites within the most powerful countries in the world, further disempowers organized labor, robs the developing world of desperately needed professionals, and turns workers against workers.

But the Left need not take my word for it. Just ask Karl Marx, whose position on immigration would get him banished from the modern Left. Although migration at today’s speed and scale would have been unthinkable in Marx’s time, he expressed a highly critical view of the effects of the migration that occurred in the nineteenth century. In a letter to two of his American fellow-travelers, Marx argued that the importation of low-paid Irish immigrants to England forced them into hostile competition with English workers. He saw it as part of a system of exploitation, which divided the working class and which represented an extension of the colonial system.  He wrote:

Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

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 “poor whites” 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.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this. (5)

Marx went on to say that the priority for labor organizing in England was “to make the English workers realize that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.” Here Marx pointed the way to an approach that is scarcely found today. The importation of low-paid labor is a tool of oppression that divides workers and benefits those in power. The proper response, therefore, is not abstract moralism about welcoming all migrants as an imagined act of charity, but rather addressing the root causes of migration in the relationship between large and powerful economies and the smaller or developing economies from which people migrate.

1 Jeffrey Miron, “Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders,” USA Today, July 31, 2018.

2 Sam Bowman, “Immigration Restrictions Make Us Poorer,” Adam Smith Institute, April 13, 2011.

3 Grover G. Norquist, “Samuel Gompers versus Reagan,” American Spectator, Sept. 25, 2013.

4 Bhaskar Sunkara, “What’s Your Solution to Fighting Sexism and Racism? Mine Is: Unions,” Guardian, Sept. 1, 2018.

5 David L. Wilson, “Marx on Immigration,” Monthly Review, Feb. 1, 2017.

• ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Angela Nagle writes for the Atlantic, Jacobin, the Irish Times and the Baffler.  She is the author of Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right (Zero Books, 2017).

• CHECK OUT the National Liberal Trade Unionists (NLTU) here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/

• LIBERAL WORKER is the voice of the NLTU.  To get hold of issue 1 simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com and ask for your FREE pdf copy!