Marxism and immigration to Europe

[Tennyson]

Communist parties in Western Europe were enthusiastically advocating non-White immigration in the 1970s and 1980s.

However, it is remarkable that the European Communist governments kept their countries racially very homogenous. Very few non-White people migrated to Communist countries and they were mostly students who were supposed to leave after finishing their studies.

What is the explanation of this discrepancy? I suspect that the Kremlin knew that racial diversity is harmful to the military and economic might of any country and thus instructed the Western communists to advocate immigration to destabilize the West.

I'd be grateful if somebody could provide sources which confirm this or any communist policy statements related to immigration.

[svin]

I think that explanation is much more easier. Even black students considered communist countries not a good place to live. That's why they left them after the end of their studies. With their education (and Soviet education was good, this is fact) they could afford much better life in their home countries.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by svin

I think that explanation is much more easier. Even black students considered communist countries not a good place to live. That's why they left them after the end of their studies. With their education (and Soviet education was good, this is fact) they could afford much better life in their home countries.

Yes but the standard of living there was still much better compared to the general standard of Africa.

Usually the students were the sons of wealthy tribal chiefs/politicians the Soviets wanted to have as allies in the Cold war.

Also, what explains that the Soviets did not admit African refugees, to my knowledge? (At least much fewer than Western countries)

[svin]

That's true, there were not African refugees. The only half-black children I know appeared after Moscow Olympic games in 1980.

[Colonial]

A true Communist party ought to put its own people first.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Communist parties in Western Europe were enthusiastically advocating non-White immigration in the 1970s and 1980s.

However, it is remarkable that the European Communist governments kept their countries racially very homogenous. Very few non-White people migrated to Communist countries and they were mostly students who were supposed to leave after finishing their studies.

What is the explanation of this discrepancy? I suspect that the Kremlin knew that racial diversity is harmful to the military and economic might of any country and thus instructed the Western communists to advocate immigration to destabilize the West.

I'd be grateful if somebody could provide sources which confirm this or any communist policy statements related to immigration.

The explaination is the absence of Liberalism in the former Eastern Communist countries. Mass immigration is heavily supported by the so-called Libertarian/Conservative parties, it is them to advocate multiculturalism too - and not only Greens/Social Democrats and other Reds. Another aspect of the Communist states compared to the Western Liberaldemocracies is their de-facto nationalism. Whilst the Western FRG outlawed and shunned all forms of nationalism and developed the so-called "Constitutional Patriotism", the East-German GDR openly propagated the "Socialist Fatherland". The GDR also propagated the working mother that has children - whilst Western Reds propagated the freedom to live childless and the destruction of traditional values. The Western Reds mostly disliked the GDR and her doctrine and militarism, only few made it overthere (like some fanatic pro-Soviet activists and RAF terrorists), most preferred to live in the "capitalist" FRG since this liberal constuct of decadence. Furthermore think-tanks like the Frankfurt School had no influence in the East. I also recommend reading this article.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

There is a difference between the so called Old Left and the New Left.

[Tennyson]

Actually, "the Old Left" exemplified by Lenin and Stalin etc. was against all forms of nationalism. Communism is a fundamentally anti-nationalist ideology.

The problem is the difference in the way Brezhnev behaved and what kind of policies his supporters in the West behaved.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by svin

That's true, there were not African refugees. The only half-black children I know appeared after Moscow Olympic games in 1980.

Actually, there were some blacks in the Soviet Union before that.

See:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003...3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

An interesting comment:

"Some allegations, such as one that by the end of 1962 racism against Blacks in the Soviet Union was worse than in the United States"...

This probably referred to an incident when some Negro made a Russian woman pregnant and wanted to marry her. Her brother killed the black man.
Hundreds of blacks reportedly chimped out on the Red Square "demonstrating against racism" and this was not tolerated by the KGB.

BTW, my university does not give me access to that journal so perhaps someone else can more accurately report what it says. The quote appeared in the Google search. =)

[Erik P]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Communist parties in Western Europe were enthusiastically advocating non-White immigration in the 1970s and 1980s.

Were they? I'd say the multicultural ideology etc mainly started in the late 80s in most of Sweden's communist parties, and for some parties not even until the 90s. Sweden's biggest communist party, Kommunistiska Partiet, is still fiercely against importing workers, they don't talk much about refugees though. The former communist parti Vänsterpartiet, now in the Swedish parliament, is extremely pro-immigration though.

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by svin

I think that explanation is much more easier. Even black students considered communist countries not a good place to live. That's why they left them after the end of their studies. With their education (and Soviet education was good, this is fact) they could afford much better life in their home countries.

I think that's pretty much it.

As for the purposeful destruction of the distinct peoples and cultures of the world by 'mixing' them away, the Soviets advocated that every bit as much as the Capitalist states, particularly the US. Though the former called it 'fusion' and the latter 'integration', it was the same thing. That the Reds failed (thankfully) wasn't for lack of trying on their parts.

"Until recently the long-standing goal of Soviet nationality policy had been the eventual merger or fusion of all nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union into a single Soviet socialist community."

Nationality Policy in the USSR and in Bulgaria: Some Observations

Ali Eminov

Wayne State College

Soviet Nationality Policy to 1985

Until recently the long-standing goal of Soviet nationality policy had been the eventual merger or fusion of all nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union into a single Soviet socialist community. This merger was to be accomplished in two stages. During the first stage, through participation in a common polity and economy, members of various nations and nationalities were to draw closer together (sblizhenie). During the second stage they were to merge (sliianie) into a single socialist community.(1) Attempts to manage cultural diversity based on these notions have been called syncretic amalgamation. According to Cohen and Warwick (1983:11), "syncretic amalgamation represented an attempt to dilute or eradicate existing cultural identities through the creation of completely new bonds or cases of collective solidarity" through high levels of governmental interference in social relations. Syncretic amalganiation in its revolutionary form attempted to replace existing group loyalties with bonds deriving from class consciousness so that parochial loyalties are superceded by regime ideology. Cohen and Warwick (1983:11-12) elaborate:

In practice, fusionist policy generally made allowances for the existence and even temporary cultivation of traditional cultural practices, provided that such activities (were) essentially of afolklore or pro-regime character.
The rationale for the temporary cultivation of ethnic institutions was that once different groups became aware of their own identities through the development of their languages and cultures, they would become aware of the superiority of an international identity and willingly substitute proletarian internationalism for parochial nationalism. However, such policies in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in Eastern Europe contributed to the strengthening rather than diminishing of ethnic loyalties, ethnic chauvinism and ethnic antipathies, in the process dampening the enthusiasm of leaders for fusionist policies. One result of this was the adoption on the part of these same leaders of "an evolutionary strategy to achieve revolutionary goals" by replacing the more "blatant sanctions of utopian normative appeals by more persuasive appeals and material incentives" (Cohen and Warwick 1983:12). The authors continue:

The expectation still remained that traditional cultural ties (would) eventually decay as a result of modernization, but it [was] acknowledged that this [would] be a very extended and gradual process. Moreover, although the merging of long-established identities(could) be encouraged and guided, this process require[d] methods more mild and subtle than those utilized by the earlier fusionist policies (Cohen and Warwick 1983:12).
This process of ethnic amalgamation was not based on the study of actual developments among various nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union; rather, it was determined a priori by party ideologues and presented as a historically inevitable process. Developments on the ground were expected to fit ideological requirements. Even though the persistence and resilience of parochial identities could not be denied, party ideologues kept insisting that the process of ethnic amalgamation was well under way."(2)

Anthropology of East Europe Review 9(2)

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Erik Puke

Were they? I'd say the multicultural ideology etc mainly started in the late 80s in most of Sweden's communist parties, and for some parties not even until the 90s. Sweden's biggest communist party, Kommunistiska Partiet, is still fiercely against importing workers, they don't talk much about refugees though. The former communist parti Vänsterpartiet, now in the Swedish parliament, is extremely pro-immigration though.

In Sweden perhaps but in Western Europe the mass immigration started earlier. A lot of blacks arrived to Britain already in the 1950s from the West Indies. There was also a lot of immigration to West Germany.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Gladstone

[b]"Until recently the long-standing goal of Soviet nationality policy had been the eventual merger or fusion of all nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union into a single Soviet socialist community."

True but the Soviet population was overwhelmingly Europid.

My question is why the USSR didn't take refugees, guest workers etc.

The Communist nations did suffer from similar demographic problems as Western countries after the World War II which caused a huge loss of population in the USSR.

Obviously, the Commies did not practice what they preached.

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

My question is why the USSR didn't take refugees, guest workers etc.

The Communist nations did suffer from similar demographic problems as Western countries after the World War II which caused a huge loss of population in the USSR.

Hmmm. During the Great Depression of the 1930's the Soviet Union did take people in, people who were workers, who were in many instances quite convinced reds themselves, and at least some of which ended up being executed in the purges, and or in forced labor camps, and some came back from where they left. Though I wouldn't be prepared to say it was great numbers that went over, I don't know. After WWII they took some too, but these being defectors from what I know, Oswald being one.

Obviously, the Commies did not practice what they preached.

I suppose there might of been willingness but perhaps things economically would simply not have sustained any great inflow. A matter of practical reality possibly on their part. But Svin and the other Russians at this site probably know the reality best and the why of it.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Gladstone

Hmmm. During the Great Depression of the 1930's the Soviet Union did take people in, people who were workers, who were in many instances quite convinced reds themselves, and at least some of which ended up being executed in the purges, and or in forced labor camps, and some came back from where they left. Though I wouldn't be prepared to say it was great numbers that went over, I don't know. After WWII they took some too, but these being defectors from what I know, Oswald being one.

Yes though they were whites.

I suppose there might of been willingness but perhaps things economically would simply not have sustained any great inflow. A matter of practical reality possibly on their part. But Svin and the other Russians at this site probably know the reality best and the why of it.

Although immigration was supposed to be an economic boon enriching culture...

The Soviets were not willing to let starving Africans to their developed country perhaps because of the angry rants of Soviet consults who were in the tragically failed African communist countries and I can imagine that they were somewhat familiar with the work of Western scientists on race and intelligence.

I think they had surprisingly much information of racial differences. It is not an unlikely prospect that the non-white immigration will lead to increasing socialism in Europe. The Communists in the Eastern block authored a number of very good scientific papers on race.

See:
"The racial analysis of human populations in relation to their ethnogenesis" by Wiercinski

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Because of the different type of economy (still to a certain extent "unglobalized" back then), Communist countries didn't neither need nor invite guest workers.

There were rare exceptions, which, however, bear scarce resemblance to the Western European model of the guest worker. At the end of the Communist empire there was (in the 80ies) the phenomenon of Vietnamese guest workers. They were sent forcibly by their government to work in different eatsern European countries, their wage was only food and housing. It was the way for the Vietnamese government to repay its foreign debts to the countries of the eastern block.

On the other hand, as Aptrgangr already stated, Communist countries were nationalist in certain sense. Maybe that also prevented immigration. And due toi difficult economic conditions in the eastern block, few even wanted to emigrate there.

And another thing: blaming only commies for immigration into western Europe is plainly ridiculous. Because immigrants came to different European countries while all kinds of governments were in charge: liberal, conservative, social democrat, socialist, christian democrats, christian socialists...

Communists were nowhere in charge in Western Europe in the post-war period. Yes, they also supported immigration out of their internationalist conviction, but were never and nowhere powerful enough to force their will upon whole countries.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Plethon

And another thing: blaming only commies for immigration into western Europe is plainly ridiculous. Because immigrants came to different European countries while all kinds of governments were in charge: liberal, conservative, social democrat, socialist, christian democrats, christian socialists...

Communists were nowhere in charge in Western Europe in the post-war period. Yes, they also supported immigration out of their internationalist conviction, but were never and nowhere powerful enough to force their will upon whole countries.

Very simplistic. Firstly, the Commies were a major force in European parlaments often gaining 5-20% of the votes in many countries. (In France often over 20%, for example)

If some conservative politicians spoke against immigration they were quickly labeled "racists" by the communists. If the communist party had been the only non-racist party many more people would have voted for it. This was the reason other parties did not want to support nationalist policies.

The case was similar in America. The Communists had a major role in "The Civil Rights Movement" and racial segregation caused harm to America's public image in other parts of the world. Because of the realities of the Cold War the American federal government chose the "lesser evil" and started the Civil Rights reforms.