I'm a Marxist but I also think race/nationality is important and multiculturalism will always result in conflict...

I'm a Marxist but I also think race/nationality is important and multiculturalism will always result in conflict. I literally can't say these things around other leftist friends but I don't know what to do.

Attached: cd27750.jpg (960x960, 60.52K)

You can be one, just keep your mouth shut and don't shit up threads.

So basically nazbol aka scum

Hi Zig Forums, how are you today?
Are you not tired of always pulling the "Hello, fellow leftists!" card?

Attached: 3606.jpg (807x659, 41.62K)

Nazbol gang?

Attached: IMG_1550.JPG (255x255, 21.45K)

You stop being an infantile reactionary.


Wait, wasn't there a thread with the exact same wording just a different pic or did I jump timelines again?

Lynch niggers daily

Attached: qkv5obidzps21.jpg (750x738, 84.21K)

You're right that multiculturalism doesn't work, under capitalism. Only Socialism with its universalist and enlightenment principles will be able to resolve the conflicts and tensions between the various demographics of the world.

Attached: 220px-Qasim_in_uniform.png (220x309, 100.52K)

“I’m a Marxist but I also hold to dog shit race science dreamed up by cousin-fucking plantation owners in the 1700s”

Niggers rape their children all the time. Oprah winfrey was raped by her own father.

Attached: vudomqz2b0s21.jpg (1080x1078, 324.02K)

Notice how you marxists always use fake quotations and "irony". You are deranged.

some baby level gore.
get better material

Nobody even mentions multiculturalism, because it's the least of their concern.

also fuck op

Terrible thread.

Have you tried interacting with someone a different race from you?

The only friend you need is nazbol gang

I don't fetishize multiculturalism and diversity like liberals do, but this isn't even true. Maybe for capitalist countries, but socialist countries have a pretty good track record of having their racial/ethnic tensions defuse over time.
Also mass immigration generally only ever occurs for economic reasons, rarely do people leave en mass if their country is stable.

Attached: cc300fa74cb326be41321388c8ca9954160d94dd12c9ff7694fb64dc1a80a641.jpg (1024x640, 469.87K)

Which socialist countries?

hi Zig Forums are you falseflagging your own thread? NazBols are cancer but "Multiculturalism" being an incoherent Liberal concept isn't actually that controversial of a position amongst Communists. That doesn't mean we're not anti-racist though.

The USSR? Cuba? The ethnic groups in Albania got along pretty well from what I hear, and even China (despite memes) had very few qualms between the minority racial groups that lived there.
Ethinic conflict generally occurs when things regress and people are put into economic conflict with each other over the number of occupations and resources. In socialist countries jobs are guaranteed and security in both finance and daily life is more or less a given. So there isn't really very much of a material reason to engage in internal conflicts outside of those instigated by outside powers.

Have you tried not being a fucking racist?

Attached: 1556739980053.jpg (640x213, 26.46K)

I consider multiculturalism to be a stepping stone towards an equal internationalist society, rather than its end goal. I think that multiculuralism as its currently practiced in capitalist countries, defined by segregation and competition between different cultural groups, is harmful and actively harmful to the unity of the working class but that's not the product of the multicultural idea, the idea of multiple cultures living together as equals, but of its implementation, that is a society where people are deliberately divided and and put in opposition to each other by a political establishment that fears nothing more than a working class that has managed to overcome its differences in favour of international and intersectional solidarity.

Attached: e51b63b9bd6d80136fa75eeaf89aa5b845d889b11a89a73e593234828634a276.jpg (670x503, 29.87K)

there is no such thing as economic class
the bourgeoisie are a made up term
there is only social class and all communism is centralization of social classes


That's not what he said you faggot.

I guess I can just wish to be the owner of a factory then and so can everyone else.

Oh look another racist who embraces junk science.

means of production are made up as well
it only has value because you say it has value
this is where the problem of communism comes in
it cannot facilitate between the value a person gives something and what the society should produce. That is why a free open market is better.
also you pretend that all factories were just wished up as well. that there was never any effort placed by the owner into building up that factory. furthermore workers agree to work you are being mistreated by not be giving ownership of the things you were working on as that was never the agreement of your work
stop being an entitled brat

*you are NOT being mistreated

Factories literally do poof out of thin air for borgs. They don't build it and they use other people's money to fund it (money acquired from exploited workers, bank loans, tax breaks, etc).
We simply want to remove this parasite and build the factory ourselves and manage our own resources.

what exactly do you mean by multiculturalism and what do you exactly mean by

A good mono-culture using real-world examples could have Balkan hospitality, socialisation and relaxation; Chinese realism/atheism; French mass protest unity; Cuban/North Korean anti-imperialist resilience; Finnish education standards; Danish labour standards; Italian and Japanese cuisine; Basque business organisation (worker cooperativisation), East-Asian/Indian/Brazilian/Italian familial bonds, African forward-looking view of death ("funerals" are for outdoor singing, drumming and dancing rather than mourning), and Nordic environmentalism.

Attached: homo-sapien-skull.jpg (1478x1478, 344.15K)

But this is false.
This has nothing to do with if the owner put in work or not. The reality is that his existence is inherently antithetical to the self-interest of the workers, and that over time such a system leads to instability and a degeneration of conditions. The falling rate of profit hastens and exacerbates the material conflict between the forces of the bourgeoisie and proletariet, and the bourgeoisie to maintain a competitive level of profit must make decisions which push against the material demands of the workers. This has nothing to do with what is "right" or "wrong", and everything to do with material and historical inevitability. The bourgeoisie, now an international power, engages in international violence to maintain itself. To match such power, the proletariat itself must seize its own monopoly on violence. These two forces in the larger scheme of history cannot be permanently resolved through anything but the application of violence, and while the bourgeoisie require capitalism to facilitate their own existence, the workers do not.

Could you not have have parallel-cutrualism

Fuck off, strasserites get the bullet too