[Blaster]

I frequently see reference to "Cultural Marxists" on blogs and in comments and I'm never quite sure what to make of it. I did a bit of reading on Wikipedia and as best I can determine, it means application of Marxist philosophies to culture. But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me, as 'Marxism' is a fairly vast topic.

Feminism is also a vast topic, but the term itself has some distinguishing features. The term 'feminist' can be easily applied to objective manifestations of feminine imperative and self-labeled members of the group. It's almost always clear from context what someone means when they say "feminist."

I'm not sure what cultural Marxist are supposed to look like. I don't know any self-labeled cultural Marxists. It's not easy for me to see connections between what I read about the philosophies and common themes. How would one show that something like say, fat acceptance, is (or is not) a "Cultural Marxist" movement?

[Emancipator]

From http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.c...rxism.html

"Cultural Marxism has been dubbed "the greatest cancer in the Western world" but few even know what it is.

Definition of Cultural Marxism*:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Cultural Marxism maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. While traditional Marxists focused on class identity in racially homogenous countries (with poor results during WWI), Cultural Marxists facilitated the racial organization of non-whites, while simultaneously asserting that "race does not exist" for white people. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, globalization, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. "

[thatGuy]

(02-17-2013 06:31 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

it means application of Marxist philosophies to culture.

There you go. That's it. It's the application of Marxist criticism to everything, especially literature and culture.

Everything should be interpreted in the timeless "who? whom?" manner. A more charitable person would probably say that it's a way of analysing culture without ignoring social relations that created it.

Either way, you end up with "privilege" and the whole postmodern discourse (read the link for genuine enlightenment). It's just a steaming pile of ad hominems dressed up to resemble a coherent school of thought. Feminist subscribe to it and most leftist will pay lip service to feminism so they can be used interchangeably nowadays.

[cardguy]

It goes back to a chap called Antonio Gramsci (circa the 1930's).

The idea is that for capitalism to be overthrown and replaced by communism - the working classes need to be inspired to revolt.

The original approach was to try and radicalise them by teaching them how they were being 'exploited' by the capitalist system.

This approach relied on trying to teach them Marxist economics. But - the working classes seemed to be uninspired by this approach. Partly because economics is boring. And partly because it is difficult to understand.

So - instead - people like Antonio Gramsci (and the thinkers that later formed 'The Frankfurt School' - which was big in the 70's) regrouped and tried to destroy capitalism via a different route.

Instead - they wanted to teach minorites how they were being 'exploited' by the capitalist system. Since they were 'losers' under the current system they might be inspired to try and overthrow the current system of organising society and replace it with something else.

The minorities included blacks, women and gays.

So - in order to try and undermine capitalist society - Antonio Gramsci advocated a 'long march through the institutions'. The idea being that you had to take over the powers that held together capitalist society and overthrow the traditional values which underpin them.

As such - you have had the politically correct revolution which has worked through society from the middle of the 80's onwards. The PC brigade has tried to undermine the institutions underpinning traditional conservative society - by weakening the family, the church, education, the police, the courts and promoting mass immigration (in order to weaken notions of national identity).

If you look at most of the major changes in society - from the dumbing down of education, the promotion of gay rights, feminism and the weakening of harsh punishments for criminials - you will see the way that the politicians have tried to shape society. This has gone to the extreme where it is now illegal to openly question many of these changes. The problem with this project is that it teaches people to think of themselves as 'victims'. Which of course is the intention of those behind the PC revolution.

Now - whilst 'cultural marxism' was originally a long-term plan to inspire a communist revolution. It seems to me as if the idea has run away with itself so that instead of a marxist revolution - we just have a cultural malaise where everything is questioned. And nobody has any answers anymore (hello 'postmodernism'). And you can believe anything you want as long as it is not associated with the traditional conservative values which went unquestioned for hundreds of years.

Looking to the future. I think the vacuum of values will ultimately be filled by the rise of Islam. Not that I care because I am never going to have children.

For what it is worth. As a critic of capitalism - Karl Marx was a genius. His work in economics is genuinely interesting and asks many fundamental (and awkward) questions which most other economists are too embarrassed to try and address. I find more interesting and novel ideas in his work than in any other thinker I have come across. I am not particularly left-wing. I just find the fundamental questions of economics to be fascinating.

Marx has inspired many projects which have given him a bad name. Indeed - towards the end of his life - when seeing the work of various groups who called themselves 'marxists' - Karl Marx commented that he himself was 'not a marxist'.

Anyway - I am not an expert on cultural marxism. I am just interested in political economy and economics (including the work of Marx). I have never really studied the cultural revolution that Marxist thinkers have inspired over recent times. So - the above is just my take on this area. I am sure others can correct any mistakes I have made.

[Frost]

Good question and there is no short answer. It's definitely a phrase that gets tossed around by a lot of people who are only vaguely aware of what it means.

I would define Cultural Marxism as the set of beliefs and ideologies whose goal is to destroy traditional European civilization. Anything that achieves this goal is good by Marxist/Leftist standards. Anything that pushes back on this goal is bad.

Here's a very good article:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/16/...l-marxism/

[Lemmo]

Short hand - far left ideology + Machiavellian tactics

[polymath]

(02-17-2013 06:56 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

It goes back to a chap called Antonio Gramsci (circa the 1930's).

The idea is that for capitalism to be overthrown and replaced by communism - the working classes need to be inspired to revolt.

The original approach was to try and radicalise them by teaching them how they were being 'exploited' by the capitalist system.

This approach relied on trying to teach them Marxist economics. But - the working classes seemed to be uninspired by this approach. Partly because economics is boring. And partly because it is difficult to understand.

So - instead - people like Antonio Gramsci (and the thinkers that later formed 'The Frankfurt School' - which was big in the 70's) regrouped and tried to destroy capitalism via a different route.

Instead - they wanted to teach minorites how they were being 'exploited' by the capitalist system. Since they were 'losers' under the current system they might be inspired to try and overthrow the current system of organising society and replace it with something else.

The minorities included blacks, women and gays.

So - in order to try and undermine capitalist society - Antonio Gramsci advocated a 'long march through the institutions'. The idea being that you had to take over the powers that held together capitalist society and overthrow the traditional values which underpin them.

As such - you have had the politically correct revolution which has worked through society from the middle of the 80's onwards. The PC brigade has tried to undermine the institutions underpinning traditional conservative society - by weakening the family, the church, education, the police, the courts and promoting mass immigration (in order to weaken notions of national identity).

If you look at most of the major changes in society - from the dumbing down of education, the promotion of gay rights, feminism and the weakening of harsh punishments for criminials - you will see the way that the politicians have tried to shape society. This has gone to the extreme where it is now illegal to openly question many of these changes. The problem with this project is that it teaches people to think of themselves as 'victims'. Which of course is the intention of those behind the PC revolution.

Now - whilst 'cultural marxism' was originally a long-term plan to inspire a communist revolution. It seems to me as if the idea has run away with itself so that instead of a marxist revolution - we just have a cultural malaise where everything is questioned. And nobody has any answers anymore (hello 'postmodernism'). And you can believe anything you want as long as it is not associated with the traditional conservative values which went unquestioned for hundreds of years.

Looking to the future. I think the vacuum of values will ultimately be filled by the rise of Islam. Not that I care because I am never going to have children.

For what it is worth. As a critic of capitalism - Karl Marx was a genius. His work in economics is genuinely interesting and asks many fundamental (and awkward) questions which most other economists are too embarrassed to try and address. I find more interesting and novel ideas in his work than in any other thinker I have come across. I am not particularly left-wing. I just find the fundamental questions of economics to be fascinating.

Marx has inspired many projects which have given him a bad name. Indeed - towards the end of his life - when seeing the work of various groups who called themselves 'marxists' - Karl Marx commented that he himself was 'not a marxist'.

Anyway - I am not an expert on cultural marxism. I am just interested in political economy and economics (including the work of Marx). I have never really studied the cultural revolution that Marxist thinkers have inspired over recent times. So - the above is just my take on this area. I am sure others can correct any mistakes I have made.

This is about as good an explanation as can be had.

The term itself is overloaded and means many things to many different people. Personally I see cultural Marxism as a phrase whose only real meaning is that the person using it is frustrated with PC and other bullshit social movements.

[kbell]

I would think things like slutwalks, marriage shaming (especially stay at home moms), VAWA, divorce industry calling all guys deadbeat dads and incompetent in general and basically most of TV and Movies. These all are used to destroy the family unit, which makes the individual more dependent on the government. You probably could include public and higher education as well since they are part of the 'long march through the institutions.'

Keynesian Economics don't make much sense from what I have read of them.

[cardguy]

Speaking of Marx - David Harvey (a prominent marxist thinker) gave an analysis of the recent financial crisis from a Marxist perspective. The talk he gave is only 11 minutes long.

Now - whilst it is an interesting talk. The reason I want to link to it is because it is part of a fascinating series that The RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) have put together. In this series - they take interesting talks - and put together clever 'real-time' drawings/cartoons to help illustrate the talks.

It really makes the talks more enjoyable. It is great to see creativity applied to what are usually seen as 'dry' subjects. I haven't checked out the rest in the series yet (but they all look good). But - I have seen the one by David Harvey and it is a very interesting analysis of how the 2008 financial crash was caused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

[kbell]

You might be interested in the Cloward-Piven Strategy. A quick excerpt from americanthinker articel about what it was.

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

For more
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/t..._of_e.html

I think there was another that went into far more depth.

[cibo]

You guys are making this too complicated. Marxism basic tenet is "those who control the means of production, control the wealth of society and will create social norms/laws to protect it".

The means of production has varied throughout time. Marx talks about how slaves during the Greek and Roman times were the means of production then. In capitalism, it's capital "money". Marx argued that capitalism created an incentive to continually exploit the poor since the profit motive both from shareholders and from competitor companies, lead to mangers always needing to cut costs and wages which meant the lifestyle of the working class would be continually worse.

The other part Marx argued is that the main controllers of the means of production in a society would create laws/norms to protect their wealth. Idea here was that the laws and norms of society would protect the bourgeoisie's privileged position and prevent the rise of workers to reclaim their rights to their labor. The classic example of this concept used by Marxists is property rights.

All cultural Marxism has done was give an identity to the bourgeoisie who are exploiting the proletariat. Simply add "white" to the rich people and "non-white" to the poor.

Ironically, I would say feminists have created the very exploitative government they say they are supposedly fighting against.

[Jevioso]

Kant, Hegel, Fitche, Marx...what do these guys all have in common, their theories all played into the finished product that was communism aka Marxism.

Kant said we couldn't figure everything out; Fitche then said because of that reality didn't matter, the spirt or "the will" is what matters; Hegel then said great men don't matter in history, it was the "spirit of history" that made men. Marx came around, dismissed the idea of spirit, denied the idea of a "big picture/causality" (metaphysics) and came to the conclusion that all that mattered in life was the war between the weak and the powerful for ownership of the material universe. All these guys were key players in coming up with the corrupt ideas that would clear the path for Hitler in the 20th century.

In common sense terms, Cultural Marxism is a rejection of a common sense in the analysis of human affairs, outside of the scope powerful vs weak in the study of cultures. In other words, cultural marxists don't care about consequences or history in terms current realities; they only care about empowering the weak, regardless of the effects it might have on the future. It's an ideology of compassion, not of reason or truth...those things don't matter, because there is no big picture, outside of ending the oppression of the weak. If you're strong and don't view yourself as a victim, cultural marxism represents everything that you could possibly hate in human nature.

[TheKantian]

It's just another term that's been misused. You'll notice that people that use it it comes down to things they like are not cultural marxism, things they don't like are cultural marxism.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(02-17-2013 06:56 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

It goes back to a chap called Antonio Gramsci...

Nominating for . Good overview.
My view:
Individual groups--blacks, hispanics, asians, and yes, white people too--NEED to have an identity as a people. That's not saying they should somehow be separate, but that it should be part of your heritage, and if we have little China, little Italy, etc., and pride days, and areas where cultural traditions are more alive, we should have this for all groups. Simply officially denying any differences of culture and tendencies exist is stupid; people need to be mature and accepting, else we're not really promoting multiculturalism, we're promoting a homogenous population--with NO benefits of diversity and ALL the issues of strife that arise, and NO national identity.
The pro-diversity argument of "you must be evil or wrong or X if your don't agree" is the same as that of the feminists. Utter rubbish. Just because you don't agree that we should have a completely homogenous society, doesn't mean you're evil or a racist; just as just because you don't agree with modern feminism doesn't mean you think women should be chained to a kitchen and denied the ability to work or vote. You should promote cooperation and tolerance of different groups, not the abolition of the acknowledgement of the differences they bring.
Cultural marxism is a silly idea, which will probably wind up like the rest of marxism. A great in theory, terrible in practice concept. Marx was right that the working class will inevitably revolt, but the end of capitalism is not probable even if one disregards the enormous military buildup and police force in place to keep it there. Maybe in the future we'll see wholly worker-owned companies through some government incentives, or a preferential tax code towards businesses which benefit communities over profit, or an increase in non-profits with a cap on the profit for their members. Hell why not just get a damn CEO salary cap already? No human being's workweek, even if they work 168 hours a week, is worth more than a million a year. And nobody needs more than that.

[durangotang]

This is an excellent and short documentary touching on the origins, key figures, and development of cultural marxism. It is essential viewing to begin to understand the subject:

Cultural marxism lies at the very heart of nearly every problem affecting the state of western civilization today. It is no wonder, as it was created to destroy western civilization. The cultural marxists are doing a damn fine job of it too. Honestly, I am glad to hear the phrase gaining traction. When I first watched the above video I couldn't remember reading about cultural marxism anywhere in the manosphere, although I am sure it was hidden somewhere.

I would personally describe cultural marxism as a radical cult of egalitarianism.

I thought cardguy gave a decent synopsis of cultural marxism right up until he waxed enthusiastic for Karl Marx. If you could invent a time machine, and please keep this in mind in case you ever do, I think Marx would be a prime candidate for extermination.

Unlike cardguy, I don't see cultural marxism as an idea that has run away with itself resulting in malaise, but as succeeding thus far in bringing about the actual destruction of western civilization in both spirit and substance. It is remarkable to think about the "progress" made by the Frankfurt school and it's disciples. Well, it is only progress if you consider yourself a progressive. I try not to let the left get away with calling themselves "liberals" anymore because their philosophy is so far from classical liberalism. So, let's review the progress of the last 100 years or so, shall we:

1) Destruction of freedom of thought and freedom of speech through critical theory. What else is political correctness but an atmosphere of punishment and censure of one's own thoughts and speech. This has already culminated in hate speech and hate crime laws in many countries and attempts in America.

2) Destruction of logic. With the destruction of freedom of thought and speech comes the destruction of logic, especially as persecuted through critical theory. This gives way to postmodernist thought, multiculturalism, and such inane drivel as "gender and race are societal constructs."

3) Destruction of faith. A promotion of atheism and an attempt to ridicule particularly Christians of their faith and heritage as anachronistic and ignorant instead of timeless and wise. Cultural marxists succeeded at asking "Is God dead" on the front cover of Time magazine in 1966.

4) Destruction of racial consciousness for European majorities, except for just enough to maintain a feeling of collective guilt for the past sins of slavery and colonialism. Anti-discrimination laws, forced integration laws.

5) Promotion of racial consciousness amongst minorities - groups such as the NAACP or National Council of La Raza. Anti-majority and anti-meritocracy laws such as quota based systems and affirmative action are implemented.

6) Destruction of gender roles, sexual norms, and any form of cultural restraint of sex. Masculine, aggressive women. Submissive, passive men. State subsidized birth control. Legal abortions.

7) Promotion of sexual perversion, homosexuality, and promiscuity as normal. Are you LGBT or "cis-male"? High notch counts.

8) Negative portrayal of family, marriage, and raising of children. To most women, raising a child today means you are a loser if you are stay at home mom. You couldn't hack it in your career, so you wanted to be a slave to a man and work at home for free? Draconian divorce and family court laws.

9) The assumed psychological state of victim taught to the majority, leading an entire country of people in America whom conquered a continent to identify more with a helpless proletariat than their ancestors who were evil.

10) Demographic collapse of European, and European American civilization resulting in massive third world immigration and destruction of the culture. Not reproducing is seen as "responsible" for the environment. Immigrants are rewarded for assuming their racial, cultural, and religious identities as victim groups against a racist, xenophobic, white majority bitterly clinging to their bibles and guns.
----------
I would say the cultural marxists have done a bang up job. It is mind boggling that a society could be transformed so rapidly actually. Most of these changes are in the past 50 years. What is the eventual end of these changes? How can the problems created be solved? Ask a "progressive" and the answer is to tax the 1%, the bourgeoisie, and we can work together through the government to solve our problems. We just need better social programs right? From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. Who said the plan to use cultural marxism to gain economic marxism never worked?

[Anon-A-Moose]

I don't agree with your statement that taxing the rich/1%/bourgeoisie is necessarily related to cultural marxism. Remember--that ultra-rich group was the same one which allows and promotes cultural marxism to keep itself in power and to depress labor costs. High levels of immigration decrease labor prices due to a surplus of labor sources competing.
There's the difference of a meritocracy--rewarding hard work--and an exploitocracy. Compare working 80 hours a week as a doctor after a decade of medical training to make $300,000, and working 80 hours a week as a high-stakes broker making millions. One of these is clearly more valuable to society--the doctor--but the broker is exploiting the system for his own gain. He deserves a higher pay than a comparable 4-year-degree holder, yes, as he takes the risks, but the rewards are obscene and overblown--furthermore, he serves little value to society itself.
It is endlessly frustrating to say all forms of wealth redistribution are evil when we live in a society and a time where exploitation is more profitable than hard work, and when a degree of wealth redistribution is a necessary evil. The gaps are simply too big; that's the result of industrialization, which lets human productivity be improved through capital expense. A vicious cycle--more capital, more investment, more capital--which is ultimately how the ultra-rich get rich, and how the average person's labor cost is depressed.
I do agree with Marx that the workers should have a hand in the means of production. But "marxism" is inherently wrong. In America, we saw the rise of living standards, a degree of wealth redistribution through economic factors, and loosening of laws to the point where the average man could purchase his own means of production. Obviously, the second method is much better, being inherently a meritocracy.
I don't see why we can't simply abolish the "shareholder" system, and make the workers shareholders. Have the workers vote on the salaries and names of the representatives who would represent them as a "board". That would doubly reward hard work, decrease the need for any form of redistribution, improve productivity, and improve the overall standard of living. Think of it as a merit-based system on steroids. The only reason we see socialism right now--beginnings of it in America, and further developed in Europe--is because it combats the extreme wealth gap. It's a fairly effective bandaid over a wound, not a cure.

[cardguy]

I have being thinking some more about this. As a result of the feminists in the UK complaining about the lack of women on British banknotes.

The goals of the Cultural Marxists has being warped and taken over by the interests of the capitalists.

Originally - Cultural Marxism was a 'long march through the institutions' which would allow capitalism to be dismantled from within.

But - that hasn't happened. Since the identity politics unleashed by the cultural Marxists has meant that the groups are too busy fighting minor battles, and ignoring the larger war. Indeed - the son of a female Marxist economist recently told me that this is the reason his mum stopped being a feminist.

And this leads to feminists being upset over the lack of women on banknotes. And not giving a shit about the distribution of wealth in society.

At this point it is worth remembering that business interests were the biggest drivers of the expansion of female employment in the 1970's. And secretly backed many of the feminst campaigners of the time.

But there is something else. Marxists believe that economics ultimately causes (and explains) the cultural life of a society.

So - by bypassing economics altogether and just focusing on cultural changes - the Marxists are achieving the broader goal of their project. If they consider the cultural values of a society as being more important than the economic values.

Therefore I am not sure if the capitalists have usurped the Marxist project. Or if they have come to an uneasy stand off - where the free market economics is left alone. And the culture is handed over to the lefty idealists...

[Grit]

The fool in the animation video above is after the red herring.

Why are people so fast to blame a system, instead of the people controlling the system.

Attacking capitalism is stupid, just like attacking marxism, or communism. The ideologies that founded all three are no different in their attempt to be rational, fair, and upward thinking. But the people that inhabit it are greedy, insecure, and intolerable of competition. Hey, welcome to humanity.

Every system is eventually going to reach a tripping point of greed, that is simply the price you pay.

P.s. The Amish have done fine for a few hundred years. They simply curtail greed. Of course, i don't see many people opting into the Amish culture. No greed= boring.

[Sherman]

Cultural Marxism is what developed once traditional Marxists figured out that the proletariat was never going to revolt against their respective countries. So instead of class struggle, they decided to shift the emphasis to identity politics, where they would band together "victim groups" like gays, women, and minorities to effect their destruction of capitalism.

An excellent book which gives the background of this topic:

The Psychotic Left

http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychotic-Left...hotic+left

[LeBeau]

Yeah the banknote debate was ridiculous...it goes without saying that Darwin will continue to have a far greater influence, and be remembered much longer than Jane Austen.

One thing I've realized with critical theory, and much of academia, is that it's almost become like a ponzi scheme of thought.

For example, take a random historical event. On some level, there will be a truth to explaining how and why this event happened. We may not have truth entirely sorted out now, but if you had infinite knowledge, you could pin down the exact reasoning.

Science searches for these truths, bit by bit, building and tearing down theories, but ultimately progressing closer to the true nature of the universe.

However, with critical theory, and many departments in the humanities/social sciences, there isn't much that can be immediately gained, or empirically demonstrated.

Academics are incentivized to write and analyze. "Publish or Perish"

Yet this system doesn't necessarily incentivize these minds to come to an agreement on the truth, and proceed from there, like science.

Rather, in order to differentiate one's self from other academics, you must analyze to the point of professional hair splitting, and create new theories solely to leave your mark.

This is one of the reasons why we have seen an exponential rise in new PC "isms" and the belief that any argument has a shot at the truth as long as you can rationalize it. Few people are concerned with facts, but rather focus on how someone feels about facts.

So, similar to a Ponzi scheme, the way to sustain many fields is not to look at science, or create a foundation (i.e. agreeing that gender mostly stems from biology) but rather continually feed the machine of debate with new theories, revisions, frameworks, etc. regardless of if they have any standing in reality or are part of the objective Truth of our existence.

You could even argue the mechanics of the literal funding of departments is a ponzi scheme in terms of job/career preparedness. There will never be enough jobs related to philosophy or women's studies to employ incoming undergrads, yet teaching them is necessary to maintain the budgets of those doing the teaching.

That's why one of the easiest ways you can point out the hypocrisy of modern Feminism is to compare it to modern art.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

Quote:

Voice of Fire is an acrylic on canvas abstract painting made by American painter Barnett Newman in 1967.
The purchase of Voice of Fire by the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa for its permanent collection in 1989 at a cost of $1.8 million caused a storm of controversy.[1] Some residents mocked the purchase with striped T-shirts and ties that mimicked the painting.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/21/are-w...-this-yet/

Quote:

The question wasn’t, “Is it offensive?” but “Is it art?” Shirley Thompson, who was the National Gallery’s director at the time, says that with no outrageous content to concentrate on, the clash over Voice kept circling back to how individuals responded to it. “You have to look at yourself,” says Thompson, who turns 80 next month and remains a presence in Ottawa art circles. “You have to look at your understanding of the metaphysical dimension of life.”

With that mindset, every argument can be relative, there are no objective truths, and it rests on the individual to rationalize their actions according to whatever theory they choose.

This article is a great example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_parking_space.

Even when women get clear privilege and an extra share of resources, you can still spin that to social construct oppression (i.e. perpetuating "damsel in distress" stereotypes).

It's another reason why Feminists constantly argue and create new schools of thought among themselves, and can only agree when they target generalizations (i.e. straight white males, "rape culture", the "Patriarchy", etc.).

You've heard the phrase "Is it Art, or just _____ (graffiti, porn, etc.)?"

Maybe the best way to re-position thinking towards academia is a slogan along the lines of: "Is it Truth, or just another PC Theory?"

[N°6]

Marxists thought that the working class would inevitably revolt against Capitalism in the industrial nations of Europe. By the end of WW1, instead of this mass awakening, the working classes fought each other in the trenches. Worse, where revolution did occur, it was in the least industrialised region of Europe - Russia - whereas in industrial Germany and Italy, the working classes found more affinity with socialism based on national identity.

This led many Marxists to consider that instead of Marxism being incompatible with the European industrial working class, it was traditional, conservative European culture which was the blame. So they decided to change it. This caused a gradual split of Old Left and New Left and today, the New Left has largely eclipsed the Old Left.

In Russia, Trotsky tried to apply many of the anti-traditional, anti-family measures that we see advocated in Sociology faculties. William Reich in central Europe tried to advocate the same to German Communists. Both were rejected and their ideals went to the West whereas Stalin revoked a lot of Trotsky's social engineering.

So in the West, Cultural Marxism is a fusion of Trotsky, Reich, Sigmund Freud, the Kinsey Inst. and the Frankfurt School's cultural 'deconstrucion'. Instead of trying to create a united working class, it creates political identity groups to focus their ire against the white male bourgeoisie. Ironically, it is bankrolled by the NGOs, the tax-exempt charitable foundations and big banks.

[Sp5]

What card guy wrote above.

"Cultural Marxism" is just a slogan of some lazy or confused people. It's a propaganda term ,too. It's meant to tar both Marx and the cultural revolutionaries some people object to - maybe feminists, maybe gay rights. I don't know what they are talking about, but Marx has nothing to do with gay rights. Ditto with "the Frankfurt School."

The perversity is that most of the cultural changes they object to are brought about by capitalism. It wasn't Theodor Adorno or Habermas who brought about widely available pornography - it was good old capitalism. Nor did Marx or Habermas bring about the two income family, consumerism and the degradation of family life - it was capitalism.

So, are capitalists the real "Cultural Marxists?"

[ColSpanker]

So how does Duck Soup fit into all this?

[It_is_my_time]

(08-09-2013 07:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

What card guy wrote above.

"Cultural Marxism" is just a slogan of some lazy or confused people. It's a propaganda term ,too. It's meant to tar both Marx and the cultural revolutionaries some people object to - maybe feminists, maybe gay rights. I don't know what they are talking about, but Marx has nothing to do with gay rights. Ditto with "the Frankfurt School."

The perversity is that most of the cultural changes they object to are brought about by capitalism. It wasn't Theodor Adorno or Habermas who brought about widely available pornography - it was good old capitalism. Nor did Marx or Habermas bring about the two income family, consumerism and the degradation of family life - it was capitalism.

So, are capitalists the real "Cultural Marxists?"

This is where it gets a little tricky...

The "capitalist" that brought this about Ford, Morgan, Rockafeller, etc. all were capitalists. In a sense they used the capitalist system to their benefit and made themselves rich beyond their ancestors lives.

We see this today with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

So then after they make their wealth with capitalism they realize two truths...

#1) The only thing that can touch their wealth is another capitalist coming along and stealing their share of the market.

#2) They must try to stop this from happening, and the only way to do that is to always have the best of the best product available or simply do their best to destroy the system that propelled them.

So while they were capitalist in bringing this about, they were doing so not to promote more capitalism but more so to destroy it out of fear.

[N°6]

(08-09-2013 07:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

So, are capitalists the real "Cultural Marxists?"

I think so but they are better described as oligarchs than capitalists. It wasn't the union movement which abolished the Christian, Sunday day of rest for a materialist day at the mall instead of a family lunch. It was profit-maximising capitalism.

It wasn't the Soviet Union that filled the world with porn.

With the Cultural Marxist identity politics of the New Left from the 1960s, niche markets have been created for identities that hadn't even existed before.

We have already discussed women's liberation into the workplace being the means to tax the other half of the population and increasing consumption. We can also say the creation of the homosexual movement created a new market of consumption by people who spend money on themselves rather than on children.

Also, in the US and UK, there is now no credible union movement to oppose finance-capitalism since the New Left (now called liberals) took over from the traditional unions. Yes, I'd say that backing Cultural Marxism was a good investment for capital.

During the Cold War, the CIA was motivated to stop sympathy to Communism from increasing in the US and Western Europe so it probably thought it prudent to divert youth interest into the 60s Counter Culture.