MONO V MULTI the Competing Sides of Culturalism
Capitalist Supremacist Monoculturalism vs. BRICS+ Social and Mercantile Multiculturalism
Culturalism, as a belief in the superiority of one culture over others, manifests in competing global paradigms that shape economic, political, and social landscapes. The two prominent expressions of culturalism today, are capitalist supremacist monoculturalism, rooted in Western-dominated global capitalism, and BRICS+ social and mercantile multiculturalism, emerging from the cooperative frameworks of nations like Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and their expanding allies. These competing visions reflect divergent approaches to culture, power, and global influence, each with implications for the mono ideologies of racism, supremacism, Zionism, and fascism.
Capitalist Supremacist Monoculturalism
Capitalist supremacist monoculturalism is the belief that a singular, often Western-centric cultural and economic model—rooted in neoliberal capitalism—is the pinnacle of human progress. This form of culturalism promotes a homogenised global culture defined by consumerism, individualism, and market-driven values, often tied to Anglo-American norms. It assumes that Western institutions, governance models, and cultural practices (e.g., liberal democracy, English as a global lingua franca, and corporate-driven media) are universally superior and should be adopted worldwide.
Historically, this monoculturalism emerged from colonial empires and was reinforced by post-World War II institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which promoted Western economic models as prerequisites for “development.” The culturalist underpinning is evident in the assumption that non-Western societies must assimilate into this framework to achieve modernity, often at the expense of their traditions, languages, and social systems. This mindset fuels racism and supremacism by framing non-Western cultures as obstacles to progress, echoing colonial-era justifications for domination.
However, capitalist monoculturalism manifests in globalised media, where Hollywood and Western brands dominate, marginalising local narratives. It also appears in economic policies prioritising corporate interests over indigenous or communal systems, such as land privatisation schemes that displace traditional societies. This cultural hegemony aligns with supremacist ideologies by asserting that only one way of life—capitalist and Western—is legitimate, fostering exclusionary attitudes toward cultural “others.” In extreme cases, it intersects with fascism by endorsing authoritarian measures to enforce this homogeneity, such as crackdowns on cultural dissent or immigration controls framed as protecting “Western values.”
BRICS+ Social and Mercantile Multiculturalism
In contrast, BRICS+ social and mercantile multiculturalism advocates for a multipolar world where diverse cultural identities coexist within cooperative economic and social frameworks. The BRICS+ alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus nations like Iran, Egypt, and others) emphasises sovereignty, mutual respect, and trade-based partnerships that do not require cultural assimilation. This model rejects the universalist assumptions of capitalist monoculturalism, promoting a pluralism where each nation’s cultural heritage is valued as a strength.
This multiculturalism is rooted in mercantile traditions, where trade and diplomacy facilitate cultural exchange without imposing a singular model. For example, China’s Belt and Road Initiative prioritises infrastructure and economic cooperation while respecting partner nations’ cultural autonomy. Similarly, India’s emphasis on non-alignment and Russia’s advocacy for a multipolar world challenge Western cultural dominance, promoting a mosaic of cultural identities. Socially, BRICS+ nations often prioritise collective welfare over individualism, drawing on diverse traditions like Confucian communalism or African ubuntu.
However, BRICS+ multiculturalism is not without possible flaws. While it opposes Western cultural hegemony, as expected some mono critics argue it risks its own form of culturalism by prioritising state-driven narratives that may suppress internal diversity. Additionally, its mercantile focus can prioritise economic pragmatism over addressing cultural tensions, potentially glossing over issues like ethnic or religious discrimination within member states.
Implications and Intersections
The clash between these culturalist paradigms shapes global dynamics. Capitalist monoculturalism, with its supremacist undertones, reinforces racism and fascism by marginalising non-Western cultures and justifying interventions (e.g., military or economic) to enforce its model. It aligns with Zionism’s exclusionary tendencies when Western powers support policies that prioritise one cultural narrative over others in contested regions. Conversely, BRICS+ multiculturalism offers a counter-narrative that challenges these hierarchies but must guard against replicating culturalist exclusions within its framework.
The tension between these models reflects a broader struggle over cultural identity in a globalised world. Capitalist monoculturalism risks perpetuating a homogenised, supremacist worldview that fuels division, while BRICS+ multiculturalism, though promising, must navigate the challenge of balancing national sovereignty with genuine cultural inclusivity. Both systems, if unchecked, can feed into the culturalist roots of racism, supremacism, and authoritarianism, underscoring the need for a truly pluralistic approach that transcends cultural hierarchies altogether.
We have purposely confined modern day Culturalism as a phenomenon in current geo-politics, however, the roots are from 1000’s of years ago, the advent of science & technology have forced us to face events accelerated by this advancement.
what are you, a neomono or an enlightened multi,
a neomono is shorthand for a self-serving ego-riddled individual who believes in their supremacy
or a multi, an post-egoic individual who puts world cohesion & cooperation first & foremost?