Cromwell wrote:No, you don't have it right.
Multiculturalism can never be considered the problem, in and of itself.
It is a response to a specific problem.
Assimilation used to be the norm. The trouble is three-fold now, however. Immigration into Britain is the result of economic interest (that's the first issue), it's on a very large scale (that's the second issue) and immigrant-descended population groups tend to cluster together and ghettoise (that's the third issue).
Most immigrants and their descendants don't want to assimilate, because they came to Britain for economic reasons. There's a common theme in right-wing rhetoric that goes something like this: (directed at the immigrant) "if you don't like English culture then why did you come here?!"
The answer is simple, but these same voices are unwilling to hear it because it is the direct result of capitalism (which they defend, vociferously) and uneven global development (which they don't give a toss about).
These immigrant populations used to be assimilated anyway but they now arrive in such high numbers and live so clustered together that assimilation is virtually impossible.
State-mandated multiculturalism did not create this situation, it simply exists to affirm and justify the situation.
Ethnic conflict is the inevitable result of this situation. The solutions are simple; reorient the economy away from a globalist free-market system, disperse the ghettoised population (on an incentive-based voluntary basis, of course) and establish a programme for integration (define common values, make concessions and offer distinct identities some room to breathe but delete the multicultural framework).
Then why do you support the rights of the gypsies to be homophobes and thugs but not prosecuted as such?
[...]
I said that these were accepted practices. The gypsy culture, as noted in the report, is not a healthy atmosphere for victims of domestic abuse and, definitely, not for gay teenagers.
As for general thuggery, again, it's an accepted practice. I could link to a gypsy fighting tournament organised on social media if you'd like or you could go through the video footage and commentary I previously linked you to.
You hit the nail on the head. It is an excuse.
At every turn, there are voices on the left who say that we should do nothing productive, ourselves, other than to defend the system from the fascist bogeyman.
[...]
You're not asking for a critique of liberalism, multiculturalism or globalisation. You're, instead, asking for the left to serve as an attack dog of the prevailing, liberal, order against fascist bogeymen.
[...]
Because it's only being anti-fascist [and therefore enforcing neoliberal rule].
And, apparently, this is what you left. Could have fooled me.
I am against the present arrangement only because the English people were not consulted on the cultural future of their country, it was decided for them (by the international ruling class) that Britain would become a multiracial and multicultural society.
Reading through your post history only vindicates what I've said. You have quite the history of issues with left liberals like PoD and communists like Kurt and Goldberk, often arguing alongside far-right users (and people like Tim), on common themes such as multiculturalism, immigration, minorities, and 'misguided' anti-fascism. Oh, and the issue of self-described communists joining a user group led by a nazi, which is apparently 'whiny' to you.
You apparently have some socially progressive views but this is pretty mitigated by the fact you use it to contain chauvinism against conservative cultures such as Roma. No doubt you also think the left and the liberals are 'too focused' on Europe and not the 'reactionary cultures'.
Oh look, you do.
we must acknowledge that the immigrant-descended population, especially in Britain, has the propensity for reactionary ideology.
Again, you have combined your English nationalism and national aspirations for Britain to world socialism if only because it brings the world up to equal development and there insofar eliminates mass immigration. Also because capitalism is 'internationalist'.
Cool, that's really common and there's a lot of people like you, but it's not Marxist in the slightest. You seem to have a clue on this:
If I were to categorise myself it would be as a Guild Socialist.
Mind you, guild socialism isn't Marxist in the slightest, and neither is anything Sorelian or syndicalist. You seem to be ignorant of this fact, since you simultaneously claim to be a Sorelian Marxist.
You are pretty indistinguishable from your run-of-the-mill left nationalist, but nothing like your average (Western) Marxist, from Marxist-Leninists to left communists.
But yes, that is exactly what should happen and this is an opportune moment as any with the possibility for groups being created opening up again and the perspective membership is lining up there.
- By wat0n
- By litwin