Is multiculturalism a plot by the bourgeoisie to weaken and divide the proletariat...

Is multiculturalism a plot by the bourgeoisie to weaken and divide the proletariat? Isn't a nation of a hundred different ethnicities and hundred different cultures that barely speak the same tongue that will never unite ideal for them?

This is a meme. Bourgs will use every trick in the book to divide and conquer. The point is to get over all that petty shit and for the entire proletariat class to take power into its own hands in order to dissolve class society. But an obvious gorrillaposting Holla Forumslack wouldn't understand this. Hopefully one day you do

If right winners capitalize on that division to promote supremacy of there own group, yes
If the people support the dismantling of capitalism and establishment of socialism, then no. But yeah, Capitalists try to exploit divisions among people, which wouldn't be as significant in a homogenous country
But look at Japan, the borgs divide people just as well be turning the view towards the countries nearby, and turning working People against the weaker/anti social elements of society (created by capitalisms unemployment, poverty, property, and black markets)

Aren't you forgetting about someone?

...

I'd be so fucking patriotic if the US established socialism

I wonder who's behind this post

...

not really, i think it's just liberal dogma

unless you have some hard evidence of a plot

...

A comrade can dream, can't s/he?

No, monoculturism is.

Reported, saged and donated 20 dollorsto a Soros backed globalist organization

Hi, OP
>>>Holla Forums

I like dumb gorillaposter

The rich ownership class LOVES and constantly shills for multiculturalism.

The working class doesn't!

Makes you think!

Newfag detected, stop fucking posting for a few months.

I thought the master race was supposed to be intelligent?

citation needed

Aha, but the US works by mostly erasing all those disparate cultures and creating a homogeneous American culture. Not so in Europe, where the "guest workers" of yore have not integrated, let alone had their culture erased. In fact, many lidpol-eftists would oppose even the suggestion.

I've been on here since 2015, but you are right. I did forget to sage

Why was this thread bump locked? Why are threads that are too threatening to the college campus champagne socialist orthodoxy always bump locked instead of debated?

So much for the tolerant left.

The bourgeoisie is not a homogenous mold that all share the exact same interests. In fact, it is quite often not the case at all.

The more vulgar observations will reveal that the bourgeoise can disagree in its own ranks with the fact that it resides over different markets. Bourgeois proprietors in manufacturing will thus have an interest in welcoming things like immigration and by consequence multiculturalism to provide for a large pool of low-skilled labor to take from.

A more sophisticated understanding of how the bourgeoisie operates would be to understand the bourgeoisie as more than just a swathe of drones that can only decide over and think about production, but also about many other things. Being the negative subject in capitalism, the bourgeoisie is thus ultimately relegated to fulfilling a specific set of functions in the productive process, but also has the freedom to theorize on how to best achieve this. This is why subjectivity exists regardless of material relations, and why for example during the rise of fascism large portions of the bourgeoisie did not think fascism would be an effective method of safeguarding its interests but that it would be catastrophical without not just a lot of bloodshed, but in general with all the costs and risks of aggressive imperialism. And just like that today, there is a bourgeoisie that stands against the neoliberal consensus and is for one reason or the other in favor of different either more right or left leaning policies for the prevailing state of things.

Finally, productive relations merely inform one's basic interests in the context of their condition of existence. These can be altered; we are not irreparably slaves to the ideologies of material conditions. In fact, it is the existence of contradictions in the material world that cause us to question the ideologies they birth. The simple fact that many high-ranking bourgeois individuals have come to be advocates of authentically anti-capitalistic politics like Engels and Kropotkin are some of the more extreme but recurring examples of this. A bourgeoisie that advocates for philantropist and humanistic measures can thus do this for reasons entirely unrelated to their bottom line.

Do not demonize Porky. Instead, pity his existence as slave to and puppeteer for the productive forces of capitalism. As pic related says, there is no need to moralize an opposition to him for he is materially drawn into egoism through his very position in the productive process.

disgusting

lol do you not know that a lot of us are anti-immigration?