In an era of cultural upheaval, multiculturalism has become a lightning rod for debate, celebrated by some as a path to inclusivity and condemned by others, such as yours truly, as a threat to societal unity. Allan J. Feifer's American Thinker article, "Multiculturalism's Marxist Roots" (April 25, 2025), our ANZAC Day:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/04/multiculturalism_s_marxist_roots.html
argues that multiculturalism is not a benign embrace of diversity but a cultural extension of Marxism, designed to erode individual freedom and Western values. By fostering division and subservience to the state, Feifer contends, multiculturalism adapts Marxist class envy into a narrative of cultural resentment, undermining cohesive societies. This blog piece outlines Feifer's argument, refines its claims through historical, philosophical, and global lenses, and proposes practical strategies to counter radical multiculturalism.
Feifer asserts that multiculturalism is a "cultural reworking of economic Marxism," prioritising state control over individual agency. He equates Europe's "genuflection to Islam" with America's multicultural embrace, seeing both as driven by a Marxist ideology that thrives outside electoral politics—in streets, courts, and campuses. Marxism, for Feifer, is a fluid mindset defined by one trait: the subservience of individuals to an authoritarian "imperial they." Multiculturalism serves as its modern narrative, restricting independent thought by fostering resentment against the successful.
Central to Feifer's argument is Karl Marx's concept of class envy, where the proletariat's exploitation by the bourgeoisie fuels antagonism. Multiculturalism adapts this by portraying successful groups—entrepreneurs, independent thinkers—as oppressors, whispering tales of unfair advantage to the downtrodden. This narrative, Feifer argues, requires no empirical truth, operating like a religion demanding faith over facts, deceiving "weak and uneducated minds." He cites two examples: in the U.S., a Minnesota government employee, Dylan Bryan Adams, vandalised Teslas without facing charges, reflecting Leftist leniency; in France, Marine Le Pen's politically motivated conviction for embezzlement aims to silence her anti-Islamisation stance. Both illustrate a totalitarian Left subverting justice and tradition, threatening God, family, and Western heritage.
Feifer's identification of Marxist influences in multiculturalism is compelling, particularly its roots in class envy and cultural manipulation. The Frankfurt School, a Marxist think-tank founded in 1923, translated economic class struggle into cultural terms, targeting family, religion, and education to destabilise Western values. Theorists like Georg Lukács and Herbert Marcuse expanded the proletariat to include marginalised groups, laying the groundwork for identity politics. Feifer's examples of institutional bias—leniency toward Adams, lawfare against Le Pen—reflect real concerns, supported by reports of selective prosecution in the U.S. (The Federalist, 2024) and politically driven convictions in Europe (Politico, 2024).
Multiculturalism's Marxist strand traces to the Frankfurt School's cultural hegemony, where revolutionaries infiltrated institutions to shift values (Prison Notebooks, 1929–1935). Marcuse's 1960s New Left expanded this, framing marginalised identities as revolutionary forces (American Thinker, 2007). Yet, multiculturalism also emerged from post-World War II mass immigration, as a way of speeding up the Great Replacement of Whites as seen in Australia, first bringing in non-Nordics, then abandoning the White Australia policy, then open immigration, then Asianisation and finally, surrender to communist China, which is occurring by our elites now.
Feifer's focus on class envy is apt but incomplete. Multiculturalism often employs identity politics, rooted in the Frankfurt School's "authoritarian personality" theory, which pathologises traditional values as oppressive (The Authoritarian Personality, 1950). Unlike Marx's economic focus, identity politics fragments society into competing victimhoods, weakening class solidarity. This flexibility allows radical multiculturalism to target diverse "oppressors"—whites, Christians, capitalists—without overt economic rhetoric, a nuance Feifer overlooks. Recognising this evolution sharpens the critique, exposing multiculturalism's divisive tactics.
Feifer's "imperial they" hints at elite manipulation but under-explores economic incentives; this is a general problem with conservatives, who have become so scared of communism (rightly so) that they cannot see any flaws with globalist capitalism. Multinational corporations and governments benefit from diverse, fragmented labour markets that suppress wages and dissent. Ironically, multiculturalism's Marxist rhetoric serves capitalist interests by dividing the working class, a dynamic Marx himself critiqued (The Communist Manifesto, 1848). This paradox—radical ideology aiding globalist elites—reveals multiculturalism as a tool of both ideological and economic control, broadening the critique's appeal.
Practical Resistance: Restoring Cohesion
Feifer's call to "hold fast" to traditions is vague. Effective resistance requires:
Policy Reform: Adopt assimilation policies, like the Netherlands' emphasis on shared values.
Education: Teach critical thinking and Western history, as Britain's 2022 curriculum attempted.
Grassroots Action: Support movements like #NoMulticulturalism to raise awareness (X Posts, 2025). A multi-pronged approach—legal, educational, cultural—can counter radical multiculturalism.
Support policies of re-migration/emigration for those who do not fit in to return to their true homes, as the Trump administration is doing to a limited degree.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/04/multiculturalism_s_marxist_roots.html
"Multiculturalism's Marxist rootsEurope has genuflected to Islam while America has bent the knee to multiculturalism; both are arguably the same. The engine is Marxism, and we're seeing that what can't be won at the ballot box is doing amazingly well in the streets and growing in power and acceptance in our courts.
Marxism is more than a textbook definition; it is an always morphing state of mind with only one defining quality: the subservience of the individual to the State and/or an authoritarian that knows best. Whether people call themselves progressive, leftist, anarchist, socialist, or communist, among other names, all are ideologies that seek to control people through whatever narrative serves them best.
Today, that narrative is multiculturalism, a cultural reworking of economic Marxism. The goal is to restrict individuals' ability to think and act in their best interest in favor of the imperial "they," with few knowing who actually pulls the strings (visualize Biden's Trojan Horse presidency). The cudgel they use with the greatest effectiveness is placing a little person on your shoulder, constantly whispering in your ear the unfair advantage others have that you don't. Class envy was Marx's most potent teaching.
Karl Marx leveraged the concept of "class envy" as a critical tool to highlight the inequalities within capitalist systems and advocate for communism. He argued that the division between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class) created a fundamental antagonism. This antagonism stemmed from workers' alleged exploitation, for they produced wealth but received only a fraction of its value, while the bourgeoisie profited disproportionately.
The connective tissue of multiculturalism uniformly weaves a misleading tale of caring for the downtrodden and those who, for whatever reason, aren't enjoying being part of a country of free and self-reliant people. Part of that connective tissue is incipient hatred for the successful, especially independent thinkers and entrepreneurs. We see this vividly play out in violent and illogical demonstrations on our campuses and streets by uneducated young people led by professional agitators.
The beauty of the left's hatred is that it never has to be based on provable truths; it just must be believed, much like any other religion that demands faith over provable fact. While not a religion per se, it takes on many of the same trappings, fooling weak and uneducated minds with popular narratives in place of actual knowledge and truth.
Examples abound. Here are two particularly instructive examples of the daily lunacy that progressives unceasingly step in. The first is domestic, and involves the attacks on Teslas as a protest against Elon Musk (who owns less than 13% of Tesla shares):
"Soros-backed Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty will not seek criminal charges for the Tim Walz staffer who vandalized at least six Teslas in Minnesota, causing $20,000 in damage.
The Hennepin County Attorney's Office will seek "diversion" rather than criminal charges.
Last week, TGP reported that a fiscal policy analyst for Minnesota Governor (and failed VP candidate) Tim Walz's administration was caught on camera vandalizing a Tesla.
Dylan Bryan Adams, 33, was caught on camera keying a Tesla while walking his dog."
Oh, and he keeps his government job!
Meanwhile, in Europe, we just witnessed a startlingly similar assault on law and justice using political lawfare against the likely next French President (based on current polling):
Marine Le Pen was convicted of embezzling European Union funds (of which she received none). She and her party, National Rally (RN), were accused of diverting over €4 million to pay staff in France. The court handed her a four-year prison sentence (two years suspended), a €100,000 fine, and a five-year ban from running for public office. This ban prevents her from participating in the 2027 presidential election. She plans to appeal the ruling.
It is important to note that Marine Le Pen is the leading voice against the present Islamization of Europe today: "The progressive Islamisation of our country and the increase in political-religious demands are calling into question the survival of our civilization." One need not agree with everything she says, but current policies in Europe, especially in France, will inevitably lead to the outcome she warns us of.
While the details, at a fundamental level, both the American and European left are totalitarians.
Our valued and historic systems of government and ethics are being turned on their heads. These hateful usurpers of truth and light must not be allowed to succeed. Hold fast to our traditions, history, God, and family itself, which are the objects of their hatred."