Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx described capitalism as a major positive force because it "by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation". He went on to describe specifically xenophobia ("The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate") but he went on to argue its transformation is deeper ("It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.")
This is part of him exalting capitalism for laying the groundwork that he believed would make socialism possible. E.g. later:
> The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, this process is progressive. Not by intent, but firstly because bigotry and hate is bad for business, as your yourself point out when you talk of Budweiser boycott (ironically mostly benefiting a more progressive company), and so while some short term losses will be had by people pushing to hard too fast, the regressive parts of the working classes will not just be left to its own, but will be battered over and over by both the bourgeoisie and the progressive parts of the working classes, because bigotry and hate is bad not just for business but also for people.
> Given your framing of this in terms of class warfare, I'd remind you that Marx
Class warfare predates Marx by roughly two thousand years (if not longer). I am not interested in what he has to say on the matter. It was sufficiently described by greeks, along with where it ultimately leads, as the Kyklos or Anacyclosis.
> So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking,
Class warfare is not a left wing concept. The left and right wing are a result of class warfare, which predates Marx and the rest of his gang of thieves masquerading as revolutionaries.
TL;DR I don't care about your bourgeoisie rhetoric of who said what. The proletariat has an absolute right to freely speak its mind without your interference. Deal with it.
It's interesting that you're reacting this way to Marx being brought up when the language you're using is straight out of the Marxist school of thought.
It's also fascinating that you favour the idea of cycles, as in that case trying to fight the bourgeoisie is an inherently lost cause and you'd be better off trying to become part of it.
But in any case, the major point was that while you may be free to speak your mind, so are others, and they are also free to choose to not want to associate with people who want to spread hate and bigotry, and you're facing a losing battle. Doubly so if you believe in social cycles (an utterly idiotic concept to buy into today given the amount of change since it was conceived), in which case you're doomed to keeping losing this battle forever.
It's called the kyklos because it is a cycle of human civilization: we go forward, we go back. Over and over without end. The struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is an inevitable part of that cycle. There is no 'losing' this battle. There is nothing idiotic in pointing out that we're still facing the same struggles because human nature hasn't changed and no one learns from history.
In any case: Marx is irrelevant, these people are on the wrong side of history, as is anyone who sides with them. Have fun screaming at a wall.
This is part of him exalting capitalism for laying the groundwork that he believed would make socialism possible. E.g. later:
> The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
So this notion of making an argument that it is about class couched in left wing terms does not change that by that same left wing thinking, this process is progressive. Not by intent, but firstly because bigotry and hate is bad for business, as your yourself point out when you talk of Budweiser boycott (ironically mostly benefiting a more progressive company), and so while some short term losses will be had by people pushing to hard too fast, the regressive parts of the working classes will not just be left to its own, but will be battered over and over by both the bourgeoisie and the progressive parts of the working classes, because bigotry and hate is bad not just for business but also for people.