> Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology[32] and unites the "productive" classes of society against the "Transferiat", with the "Transferiat" being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off of transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off of social welfare benefits, as well as those who work "made-up services"[33] that the party deems serve no societal function, such as bureaucrats, consultants, public sector communications specialists, strategists and HR-specialists.
It's practically a copy and paste of the ideology behind "doge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_N._Haldeman
"The technocracy movement proposed replacing partisan politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy"
I also highly doubt USSR would accommodate people who move in and don't bother to integrate into the culture and speak Russian. Ask people from entire countries where Moscow did Russification, and those people didn't even move in from outside they already lived there.
They had strong opinions of what was deemed "socially useful" work and were not above abolishing those pursuits they deemed to be useless.
All able-bodied people were expected to work (in approved roles) and you would be provided a job if you couldn't find one but if you refused to work they would deem you a "social parasite" and prosecute you if you didn't reform your behavior.
Somehow, people seem to forget that Marxism is an ideology of workers.
Not really, Marx and company were nobles, lawyers, etc. The ideology concerns provoking a civil war and taking over, workers rights is just the rhetoric to cause the revolution. The worker’s paradise never materializes because it’s not actually about that.
Not all of the component parts of the ideology are necessarily false due to their introduction and popularization by Marx. Personally, I find his writings obtuse and his beliefs abhorrent. There is, however, merit in the idea that the state should benefit its people, a large percentage of which are the productive working class, but it shouldn't be ruled by the working class. The state is its people and their culture, it shouldn't oppose their interests or subjugate and exploit them for the advancement of ideals alien to them.
> There is considerable evidence that the reduction in hours of work is a basic goal and commitment of the Communist movement and the Soviet state.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP64B00346R0001002...
"Those how do not work, do not eat" - Mao
Interestingly, psychoanalysis in the USSR was aimed at helping the patient to go back to work, for instance.
Being anti-immigration doesn't automatically swing the party to the right. As written on Wikipedia, "left-conservative" is probably the best label.
The Swedish far-left loves to, for instance, brand the governing party in Denmark as far-right, but they are actually also left-conservative.
It is possible (shocker) to be liberal and progressive, whilst also being pro-assimilation, pro-deportation, anti-immigration.
Yes, but the behavior in that quote, cutting social services, is none of the above. Using language associated with far left movements while promoting far right policies leaves you as a far right party.
> Being anti-immigration doesn't automatically swing the party to the right
Literally nothing in the quote I quoted is about immigration (though they hit that checkbox as well and it absolutely does swing you to the right).
By providing free healthcare and dental care or at least reducing out of pocket costs?
A very quick search yielded this short clip of Hillary Clinton:
https://youtube.com/shorts/Zsq32nNjNoE (no endorsement of overlays/etc intended, just the first result in the search)
source?
> In 2026 ÖP party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
The real number is around half, 67000.
Now if we assume social welfare-Somalis is a derogatory generalization of all kind of immigrates, including non-Somalis, then it is likely to be more than 100 000 immigrants that is on social welfare. They just won't all be Somalis, or even be the majority of them.
> A country has the right to determine who lives within it.
This is obviously true and every country has laws in place governing immigration and different laws in place governing handling of refugees. Given in most countries the ratio of immigrants to refugees is very high, what is it you’re objecting to? Countries can change their laws and often do, after a change in government. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with arguing for specific levels of immigration. But what you really shouldn’t do is retrospectively change the rules so that people who immigrated legally and settled in their adopted country are now threatened with expulsion.
It seems to me that in a lot of the discussion around immigration there is a subtext of “I don’t like how they behave/think/choose to live.” Which would be fine if people were honest about what they want - in which case, feel free to agitate for laws governing citizens’ behaviour. Don’t be a bad sport however if such laws don’t get passed. Another thing that apparently worries some people is criminality (as if that’s a function of race). By definition, something is criminal if it’s against the law. So enforce the law. Laws are typically not racist and criminals come in all flavours.
> Laws are typically not racist
They explicitly are in every liberal shithole (Canada, UK) because the goal isn't equality it's letting brownoids shit up the place because you people are culturally suicidal.
The Muslims in the UK right now are not culturally compatible with the UK. They need to leave, they do not belong.
How does what Allard said not fit this definition?
Being left and anti-immigration is not an oxymoron.
Though I must say, based on some comments here, that people who are defending the party's ideology do seem to read it in terms of race...
Also Swedes are an ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes
Given the party's other points', I'd still say he's not talking about Swedes as an ethnicity but as a nationality, similar to how other non-far-right, conservative parties express their beliefs. I checked the page, and that quote is provided without the context, and since Sweden does not have birthright citizenship, I don't know if he's talking about non-naturalised kids or naturalised people.
Further complications come from the fact that stripping "bad" immigrants of nationality is now an acceptable talking point for liberal parties the world over, and that position is very popular with people of all origins, not just the ethnic Europeans. I'd even argue it's less popular among ethnic Europeans than those of other ethbic backgrounds.
But I'll acknowledge that defending that party's position requires giving tons of benefit of the doubt...
Don't put words in my mouth.
> No, a Somali who immigrated to Sweden is nationality wise Swedish and ethnicity wise Somali
You seem to misunderstand the concepts of nationality and ethnicity, and how naturalisation operates.
Please go ahead and define nationality and ethnicity. I’m happy to allow you to entirely define the terms to your ends and make an argument within those bounds. Please also tell us how the quoted statement calls out “naturalization” and “nationality” because it’s critical to you “not” doing racist apologia that both your definitions and the quoted statement are coherent.
If you ctrl f my username on this page, you'll find I'm arguing against racism and Islamophobia in another thread.
Let me make an assumption: you're an American liberal. Like many American liberals, you talk without knowing much about anything, with the purpose of feeling righteous, and appearing pure to others.
The world is more complex than what you read on the news.
I suggest you read "How immigration really works", by Hein De Haan, a book that explains why immigration is not a left or right issue. I also suggest you search definitions for these terms: nationality, ethnicity, naturalised immigrant.
The proposed policy here is squarely what Rome Statute, Article 7 (1)(d) is intended to prevent. Sweden is a party to the treaty.