• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
Chomsky
Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation
K R BoltonAcademy of Social and Political ResearchMulti-cultural politics including that concerned with immigration is a method of socialengineering. Whoever raises a voice in public in opposition or even merely of cautionis pilloried as a ‘racist’ and a ‘reactionary’. Conversely, those who championmulticulturalism are upheld as the paragons of ‘progress’ and humanitarianism. Yet behind the moral façade multiculturalism is a cynical stratagem, an important part of the process of globalisation in the interests of a small, self-appointed plutocratic elite.This essay examines how multiculturalism is an aspect of globalisation.“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploitracism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it.Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeablecogs, and differences among them, such as on the basisof race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may befunctional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situationsare kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you canexpect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because it’santi-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic -- there's noreason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a humancharacteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere withthe basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties theymight have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."
1
NoamChomsky.It is ironic that an intellectual championed in particular by the anarchist-Lefthas given such a cogent definition of the motivating force behind multiculturalism.Among the numerous references to Chomsky made by the Left his diagnosis of capitalism as being ‘anti-racist’ because it aims to create a society of humans asnothing more than ‘interchangeable cogs’, does not receive the same attention as hisother views. As Chomsky states, individuals cannot function at an optimum level as producers and consumers if there are racial or what we might further categorise ascultural and national, divisions.Chomsky is outside the mainstream of Leftist ideology, which sees humanityand the individual in precisely the same terms as capitalism sees humanity as defined by Chomsky in the above passage. Both capitalism and Marxism
2
are globalist, and
1
1..
 
 Noam Chomsky,
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
(New York: The New York Press, 2002), pp. 88-89.
2
2.
As for ‘anarchism’ which often refers to Chomsky and which claims to be an alternative to bothcapitalism and Marxism, the contemporary anarchist position on demanding ‘open borders’ andinternationalisation is only an extreme variant of the two ideologies it claims to oppose. Likewise, theTrotskyist faction of the communist Left in particular is a champion of ‘open borders’. (See K R Bolton,
 Building the New Babel: Multiculturalism and the New World Order 
, Paraparaumu, NewZealand
:
Renaissance Press, 2006, pp. 65-67). The original anarchist opposition by Mikhail Bakunin
1
 
Marx
 both are reductionist in seeing economic factors as the primary determinants of human behaviour and history.Marx himself was not adverse to Free Trade capitalism. He supported FreeTrade insofar as he saw it as a dialectical catalyst for the destruction of national boundaries, which would internationalise ‘the proletariat’ and eventually lead to aglobal system. Global capitalists maintain the same outlook today. Marx’s analysis inregard to Free Trade was correct, although his alternative is nothing more than tochange the ownership of production and distribution. Marx said of Free Trade:“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily moreand more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedomof commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of productionand in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.”
3
Today’s global corporate executives and planners concur with Marx. Marxfurther identified ‘protectionism’ as the conservative position, Free Trade assubversive and revolutionary. Those – mainly political scientists and journalists,especially in the English-speaking world – who insist on defining ‘conservatism’ (sic)as Free Trade liberalism
4
’, should return to an actual source; in thisinstance Marx, to re-evaluate their definitions:“Generally speaking, the protectionist system today isconservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructiveeffect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders thecontrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In aword, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution.And only in this revolutionary sense to I vote for Free Trade.”
5
South Africa Succumbed to Plutocracy – Not Communism
A classic example of the way by which multiculturalism is sold behind themoral guise of ‘anti-racism’, ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ in the interests of  plutocratic exploitation is that of South Africa. Without arguing the merits or otherwise of apartheid, the salient factor in considering multiculturalism as part of theglobalisation process is that the fall of the Nationalist Government was the outcome of a nexus between Black communist-inspired terrorists from below and plutocracy
to Marx in the
 Internationale
included a critique of Marx in neglecting ethnological factors in historyin favour of the entirely economic. Bakunin stated of Marxism, again seldom referred to by thecontemporary ‘anarchists’:“Likewise, Marx completely ignores a most important element in the historicdevelopment of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular character of each race andeach people, a temperament and a character which are themselves the natural product of amultitude of ethnological, climatological, economic and historic causes...” Sam Dolgoff (ed.),
 Bakunin on Anarchy
(Alfred A Knopf, 1972), pp. 282-3.
3
Karl Marx,
Communist Manifesto
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 71.
4
A more accurate term for today’s so-called “right-wing” capitalists (also misnamed the “New Right”,the definition in the English speaking countries being again quite different from that applied to theterm on Continental Europe, including the so-called ‘neo-conservatives’ in the USA), would be ‘neo-Whig’.
5
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, “Speech on the question of free trade delivered to the DemocraticAssociation of Brussels at it public meeting of January 9, 1848”,
Collected Works
, Volume 6 (London:Lawrence & Wishart, 1976).
2
 
headed up by the Oppenheimer interests
6
 working from above. Here communism andBig Business served as pincer movements with the ‘Boer’ in between. In eulogisingHarry F Oppenheimer on his death in 2000 Mandela stated: “His contribution to building partnership between big business and the new democratic government in thatfirst period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much.”
7
The result has been not been a regime that would deliver South African wealthto the Blacks in a new utopia of peace and plenty. Rather the African NationalCongress (ANC)/Communist Party regime has opened South Africa up toglobalisation and destroyed the remnants of the economic nationalism of the Afrikaner nationalist governments. It was the Afrikaner nationalists who stood for Stateeconomic intervention and who stood up to monopoly capitalism, since the days of theold Boer Republics. The Black regime has reversed this economic nationalism infavour of globalisation and privatisation.In 1996, according to a Reuters report, Nelson Mandela, heralded as a saint bythe capitalist press and the Left alike, stated that: “Privatisation is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.”
8
Now the ANC Government is busydismantling the state economic structure erected by the Afrikaner nationalists tosafeguard their nation from the incursions of international finance capitalism. TheANC/CP Government is turning State run utilities over to global corporations, just as‘privatisation’ and globalisation in New Zealand was originally enacted under a so-called “Labour” Government. For e.g. the State has divested itself of its 40% share inSouth African Airways, once the most profitable airline in Africa. The Johannesburgmunicipal water supply has been privatised and is now under the French corporationSuez Lyonnaise Eaux. Eskom the state electricity producer, was made into a publiccorporation to pave the way for privatisation. The ANC stated that:
“Eskom is one of ahost of government owned ‘parastatals’ created during the apartheid era which thedemocratically elected government has set out to privatise in a bid to raise money.”
9
This good comrade, Mandela, nurtured by the Communist apparatus in SouthAfrica, lauded by the Western media as a saint, paved the way for the privatisation andglobalisation of the South African economy. He has followed the example of the restof de-colonised Africa, where the global corporations moved in once the colonialadministrations had pulled out.
10
6
The Oppenheimer diamond and gold mining empire, which extends into the mass media and politics,and has economically and politically permeated South African since the 19
th
century, is the historicenemy of the Afrikaner. See: David Palliser, et al,
South Africa Inc.: The Oppenheimer Empire
(London: Corgi Books, 1988).
7
“Mandela honours 'monumental' Oppenheimer”,
The Star 
, South Africa, August 21, 2000,http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000821001004683O150279(accessed September 27, 2009).
8
Lynda Loxton, , "Mandela: We are going to privatise,"
The Saturday Star 
, May 25, 1996, p.1.
9
ANC daily news briefing, June 27, 2001. See also “Eskom”,
 ANC Daily News Briefing 
, June 20,2001,
70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/2001/news0621.txt 
10
Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko relates in his
Memories
(London: Arrow Books, 1989) that“Washington tended to view colonial empires as a anachronism and made no secret that it would shedno tears were they to be dismantled… In any case it was time for the old masters to move aside.” Thealleged communist menace from the USSR served as a diversion while the ‘new masters’ of global big business moved in to fill the vacuum left by the departure of the colonial powers. The primaryinstrument in this process was the Africa-American Institute, which serves to train new African politicians and bureaucrats. The institute is staffed, led and funded from the usual sources for suchendeavours: Ford Foundation, Coca Cola, Merrill Lynch, et al. (Bolton,
op.cit.,
2006, pp. 48-51).
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
Liberalreaccionario

I'm reading your work "Twitterers of the World Unite!". Very interesting paper. Great insight and research. Greetings from Colombia.

reply07 / 06 / 2011
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...