With modern liberalism being thoroughly invested in the utopia of borderless world cosmopolitanism and pure economic socialism, we often forget that these very social engineers may be shooting themselves in the foot with what they are trying to accomplish. The two are counter to each other. Socialism by definition means that there is a shared pool of community wealth, and that wealth is to be shared somewhat evenly with members of the community, so that everybody’s basic needs are met. Metaphorically, a group of people take all the gold coins they make, put them in a pot, and then evenly redistribute them.

The important question then becomes: what defines that community? That pot of gold to be redistributed is meant for people inside a certain population, not outsiders, and certainly not the whole world. If outsiders are allowed to stick their hands into the central pool of wealth, then the wealth will run out. There will not be enough to go around. This is just simple math. If cosmopolitans want a world with no borders, as they seem to advocate with the US-Mexico situation, then they are the true enemy of economic socialism.

In a labor union, the workers collect a union pension at the end of their life. It comes from a big account of money that is managed by the union bosses. The money fills up the account over time when union workers pay their dues. If conditions, wages, benefits, and hours do not appeal to the union boss, he has the power to cause a strike and shut down production. Unionized workers are given special protections, and represented by labor lawyers in workplace disputes. Being a union member makes it close to impossible to be fired. If you do not pay your dues, the union will not accept you, they will not protect you, and you will not collect a pension. And why should they? If you did not pay into it, you do not deserve to collect from it. If you believe that anybody can collect the union pension without paying dues their whole life, you are an enemy of unionized labor, and therefore an enemy of the economic left.

It is frequently said, “Lincoln Republicans would be liberal Democrats today and Confederate Democrats would be conservative Republicans”. This is factually incorrect. Liberal media has a recent sting of nostalgia, citing that the minimum wage in 1967 would be equivalent to 22 dollars an hour today, while conveniently ignore the xenophobia, sexism, racism that came with it collaterally. The economic leftist was absolutely no friend to any woman or minority before the 1930s, at the earliest.

Labor unions existed for the purpose of protecting jobs for white males, whether it was from Chinese railroad workers, Mexican fruit pickers, or free black sharecroppers. Due to the racism of the time, no freed slave would ever complain about his wages and conditions. This made him the best friend of the free market, and the greedy Republican company bosses looking to pay a lower wage. From 1865 to 1933, blacks were aligned with the Republican party for predominantly economic reasons, because most submissively accepted low wages that white unionized Democrats would strike, fight, protest, riot, and vandalize over.

Most people have a misunderstanding of South African apartheid, being under the impression that all white South Africans came as colonialists the late 1800s, conquered the native population, and enslaved them through apartheid. The reality is that country folk of Dutch heritage, Afrikaners, had been there since the early 1600s, and were taken over by the British Empire. Under British control, De Beers Diamonds became the center of the economy. Invoking the model of open borders and free market, thousands of low wage workers were transported from British India to work in the diamond mines. The Afrikaners saw these as threat to their economic interests, and began unionizing, like laborers elsewhere in the world.

The banning of Indians and blacks from the mining unions was the origin of apartheid. In 1948, though South Africa remained in the Commonwealth, the government established vigorous regulations to protect their identity as an Afrikaner nation. The Afrikaner miners wanted their unionized labor interests protected by the government, with no interference from De Beers or London. The racist apartheid system was a socialist system, protecting jobs at De Beers for Afrikaners only. In the free market, De Beers would replace unionized Afrikaners with low wage Indians and black Africans. The economic left is clearly aligned with racism in this situation, whereas the free market celebrates diversity.

The common theme we see is that once workers formed a socialist union, they put a huge wall around themselves to make sure that no one else got a piece of their pie. This is economics, not sociology. Any disenfranchised classes willing to work for lower wages with no noise were not welcome. If you are going to have a socialist system, then there is a pool of money that people inside a walled-off area are going to enjoy for themselves, and for only themselves. That goes for labor pensions, but that also goes if you are going to have a welfare state.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, there was a huge change in the Democratic party, based around the conflict of interests between union workers and welfare recipients. With LBJ’s War on Poverty, welfare dependency increased by leaps and bounds, changing the Democratic party base to counterculture activists and the very poor. The conservative union workers began leaving the party in gradual droves between 1964 and 1980. As the union workers saw it, they may have been invested in a socialist system, but it was one that they worked and paid into. The way they saw it, the Democrats were now giving to non-workers what was only meant for workers.

Modern liberalism also believes in a strong social safety net for the non-working, whatever the reason may be. They claim they despise welfare abuse, but are continually supporting legislation to make it broader and increase its availability margin, and extend the benefits. They oppose drug testing for its recipients. One study claims that since the 1980s, there has been a 300% increase in disability collections based on injuries that medical doctors cannot physically see (pain, headaches, psychological symptoms). And with a full-on embrace of third wave feminism, modern liberals have absolutely no intention of deterring single female parent households, which will inevitably make everything worse, as one income and one parent makes far more difficult to get off welfare.

By allowing welfare to become a lifestyle (by making it elastic), one destroys its purpose, which is to fix temporarily “broken” people and put them back in the workforce, as quickly as possible. You cannot be a friend to those who truly need welfare, the orphaned children, the truly handicapped and disabled, and the sick and elderly, if you make the qualifications for welfare completely elastic. Elastic in the sense that able-bodied adults, especially men, and those who are not even citizens, can qualify with limited effort. The problem is not that people on welfare get so much welfare individually. The problem is that so many people are on it, growing and growing.

Of course, the answer that Keynesians have for this is so simple it’s childish. “The one percent: greedy Republican businessmen like the Kochs and the Waltons, have so much money there is enough to go around, for every poor person in America and Mexico and the whole world too!” Their goal is to continually raise taxes on these greedy businessmen so more and more of these programs can be funded. You want to hit them as hard as you can? Well do it, and watch what happens. You think you are sticking the knife the heart of the big time CEOs? But you are not. You are barely breaking his fingernail. You are sticking the knife in the back of the union laborer, the legal immigrant, and the working poor American. Do you think they actually want a fresh crop of competition from South of the Border?

Today, undocumented immigrants are like the newly freed slaves. They are terrified of their situation around them, terrified of being deported, being hurt and being discovered, being taken advantage of. The vast majority are incredibly quiet people, very harmless people, who keep their mouth shut, and want no trouble whatsoever. They will never complain about conditions, hours, or wages. They are the free market. If they are undocumented immigrants, they cannot be on welfare, or at least it is incredibly hard, and requires cheating the system or having an American-born baby.

Democrats (and most Republicans too) want millions of undocumented immigrants to be pushed ahead in line to automatic citizenship, which will give them access to welfare benefits. Anyone who supports this is an enemy to the American on welfare. The rights of a US citizen mean nothing if the entire world can qualify. Why stop with automatic amnesty for the undocumented immigrants in America so they can qualify for benefits? Just change the rules so the benefits can apply to every citizen in Mexico. Or just make it the entire world.

If you interview most undocumented immigrants, they will tell you that their worst day in the United States is better than their best day in Mexico or wherever they came from. They don’t have civil rights or civil liberties in Mexico, and they don’t expect to get them here. You bring millions of them here, and make them citizens, then the elites, Democrat and Republican, will treat them exactly the same way they get treated back home. And they wont notice or question it. That’s why they are wanted here, because a country made up of them is easier to exploit.

The one percent multi-billionaires are not in any way stupid. They figured out this game one hundred years ago, and now float around the entire world, putting their money in different things, aligned with philanthropy and different goals. The extreme rich, the one-percent does no work anyway. They have billions of dollars that they don’t care about. Even the Rockefellers, who started out as typical greedy robber barons, washed their hands of capitalism in 1911 and invested in globalist socialism. All these people do is run hedge funds which constantly loans money to political causes, some philanthropic, some just pure social engineering.

Skinny college kids working for organizations such as Credo Mobile and others can go hunt around the world for every greedy corporate CEO, organize his workers, and demand higher wages, but if they chase the money far enough, they will find out that the money for their stipend as a “trained activist” comes from the very same billionaire corporate CEOs they are organizing against. This is the irony.

Originally published by Wood at the Libertarian Liquidationist.