The ideology of polylogism or collectivist relativism holds that there exists no absolute standard of reason or morality, but rather than logic and morals are different for various races and socioeconomic classes. As such, polylogism stands in direct opposition to the Enlightenment principles of individualism, rationalism, and moral absolutism.
Polylogism is ludicrously flawed, but what are its implications in practice? A hint is to be derived from the fact that the Marxists had been polylogists; so had the Nazis in Germany. The former had ruthlessly confiscated property from, excluded from universities, and sentenced to slavery in the gulags those whose class affiliation was “bourgeois”. The latter committed genocide in the millions against members of races not of “pure Aryan stock”.
A question emerges, however: how does a viewpoint of collectives as immune to judgment and inherently divergent result in the persecution of one by the other? Polylogism in the context of an Aryan master race would state that because the racial identity of, say, the Chinese or the Polynesians or the Jews renders them inevitably “backward” (in the context of “Aryan logic”) or, in the example of the Jews, inherently “exploitative”, there exists from the standpoint of “Aryan logic” an irreconcilable conflict between the “master race” and miscellaneous ethnic groups.
Because no common ground can be found between the followers of “different” systems (as, if a German cannot grasp Jewish logic, neither can a Jew grasp German logic), the only solution to the conflict is not persuasion and analysis, but brute, unthinking force. Just as the Polynesians are allowed to, under this vile calculus, disembowel and roast a Western missionary who seeks to teach them basic arithmetic (as he is irreconcilable with Polynesian logic), so can the Germans vaporize the Jewish people as a different species acting upon a framework to which the Germans cannot relate.
What results ultimately is a violent contest of brutality, determined by which ethnic group is able to amass the greatest amount of coercive pressure to violently squelch the others. The Marxists admitted this with a greater degree of frankness, claiming that all the objections to their immoral and unrealizable theories were from the standpoint of “bourgeoisie” economists who were inherently incapable of fathoming the essence of socialist theories and thus needed to be swept aside by the rising tide of proletarian revolution.
Therefore, relativism (or “multiculturalism”, as its more affirmative-action specific offshoot is called) is ultimately a racist doctrine advocating persecution, segregation, and pressure-group warfare. Not only, say the relativists, are the African-Americans entitled to first dibs on employment because we cannot grasp their peculiar genetic requirements, but also because, from the viewpoint of “African-American logic,” it is necessary to displace the sub-humans that are the Caucasians who are incapable of “understanding” the life of the African-American in its full scope. So must minority quotas be established in colleges to seek to facilitate antagonistic pressure groups and create for them an arena where they may resolve their differences forcefully, determining whose genes may or may not be admitted based on the outcome of their slur-hurling, ancestor-blaming back-and-forth tirades.