It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Discussing Cultural Marxism and the Reactionary Movements That Oppose It.

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You cant equate all forms of social progress with Marxism. First your view of social progress is not in line with that of true Marxism. What I mean by that is within our current society a black man can be a bum or president. He has no class restrictions but is afforded all the opportunity his abilities and drive can afford.

Cultural Marxism is the weaponization of social causes centered around traditional values, populations,customs, and hierarchies. I was engaged in a conversation with TrueBrit about this in PM. Lets take feminism. The progress view is one where women have equal protections and opportunities. The cultural Marxist view is to weaponize the past injustices and direct that energy towards inverse oppression. They don't think that our view of "equality" (the progress view) is truly Marxist because of the intrinsic hierarchies that exist within a capitalist structure. They think the only way to bring down that hierarchy is to instigate rebellion and division among the existing classes and structures so that they wipe each other out. Not literally but that the effects would be so destructive that the only recourse is the Marxist view. This Hegelian dialectic is what will bring about the outcome they desire.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Do you have any evidence this "weaponization" is actually happening?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I have just noticed that the second video in the 2nd post of my OP was not the video I intended to post.

This was the video I meant to post. Some of the illustrations he uses I tried to find online to no avail but I feel illustrate the points about the weaponization aspect quite well. 30 minute vid that does unfortunately contain some profanity.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

A full day later and still nobody has actually shown how "Cultural Marxism" is still alive or even vaguely Marxist.

Habermas, Marcuse, the Frankfurt School? All very old school. The structuralists? What, is this 1967?

Any discussion of the inevitablity of history, the various driving forces behind history, the contradictions of capitalism leading to its collapse from within, dialectical materialism etc? Nope.

Plenty of red herrings? Yep.

Maybe tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Frankfurt School has different names.

They stay below the radar.

Institute for Social Research


The Institute for Social Research (German: Institut für Sozialforschung) is a research organization for sociology and continental philosophy, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and critical theory.





posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I would think of the case where the schools in Minnesota decided they couldn't have Valentine's Day anymore because it was too American and not inclusive and might hurt the feelings of other students.

There you go.

Using the idea of multi-culti and inclusiveness to attack a traditionally American celebration and tradition by claiming you didn't want anyone to feel left out (or excluded) because their culture did not celebrate it.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Critical theory is widespread so how can you say they have no modern influence? The people they did influence are in power in politics and academia continuing to influence. Their books are still read. It was the first half of last century so the followers have adapted and added to the original idea today. That doesn't mean it simply went away.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I would think of the case where the schools in Minnesota decided they couldn't have Valentine's Day anymore because it was too American and not inclusive and might hurt the feelings of other students.


That's not Marxism, that's stupidity. Previous generations of immigrants used formerly religious secularized holidays as a means to learn of the American experience. Whoever made that decsidion needs to be relieved of their post.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

" Discussing Cultural Marxism and the Reactionary Movements That Oppose It "



Think /Speak Translation - Discussing Cultural Capitalistic Democracy and the Reactionary Marxists Movements That Oppose It .



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Would you care to elaborate? I titled the thread the way I did because right now if you do a search for cultural Marxism you will encounter a great deal of nationalist, ideniterian, monarchist, fascist, libertarian, and racist sources. This doesn't invalidate their claims but they are using it as a vector for recruitment. I draw attention to the ongoing application of the theory and to the fact that the reactionaries that are waking up are being co-opted and led into being the enemy of the cultural Marxist.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is a good example. Another would be a thread I remember from a couple of months ago about a teacher who was giving exclusive play time to female students. She was also ( I could be wrong going from memory) trying to force the girls to play with male toys. She felt the boys had an advantage and the only way to enable the girls and MAKE them interested in male driven science was to disadvantage the boys and prevent them from playing or having access to the toys. This was an experiment she claimed and there was some controversy but it illustrates perfectly the mindset.

ETA: HA! It was actually a thread you had created Ketsuko. Blakely teacher restricts Lego-play to her girl students in the pursuit of gender equity
edit on 11-2-2016 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: ketsuko

That is a good example. Another would be a thread I remember from a couple of months ago about a teacher who was giving exclusive play time to female students. She was also ( I could be wrong going from memory) trying to force the girls to play with male toys. She felt the boys had an advantage and the only way to enable the girls and MAKE them interested in male driven science was to disadvantage the boys and prevent them from playing or having access to the toys. This was an experiment she claimed and there was some controversy but it illustrates perfectly the mindset.

ETA: HA! It was actually a thread you had created Ketsuko. Blakely teacher restricts Lego-play to her girl students in the pursuit of gender equity


Yes, an excellent example... once you follow up on it:


Blakely Principal Reese Ande didn’t know about the girls’ Lego group until the article.

“As soon as I found out about it, we made sure all students had access to all curricular material,” Ande said. “As a school system, it’s our responsibility to provide opportunities and access for all kids.”


www.centerdigitaled.com...

Dang! Cultural Marxism threatened by fairness and common sense again!



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


I titled the thread the way I did because right now if you do a search for cultural Marxism you will encounter a great deal of nationalist, ideniterian, monarchist, fascist, libertarian, and racist sources.


That speaks volumes as to the appeal of the "theory." As I said, it is significant that the conspiracy theory emphasizes the Jewish contribution while ignoring the French.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Your disclaimers are surrounded by dense rhetoric. The phrase "cultural Marxism" is unfortunate, as it implies that the proposed solution to the perceived imbalance of societal power is economic. When homosexuals want to have the same rights as heterosexuals, the solution is not to give control of the means of production to the workers.

Your analysis is biased in other ways. First, you assume that social criticism is exclusively leveled at "western" institutions. In fact, it is leveled at whatever society the critics inhabit. Social activists oppose monarchy, Islam, Stalinism, and so forth in countries where these "isms" apply. Obviously, social criticism is more dangerous in these "non-western" societies.

Secondly, you overemphasize the contribution of central European socialist academics. There was not much interest in their brand of Marxist analysis outside of academia in the United States. There was a long tradition of grassroots labor organizing in America that sought to make capitalism more just, not overthrow it.

The greatest impetus to what you (lamentably) call "scientific Marxism" came with the influx of "structuralist" thought from France in the 1960s. Levi-Strauss, Fanon, and especially Foucault, developed their deconstructionist theories as an alternative to Marxist analysis, which had been losing its dominant place in French academic thought. It is they who expanded social criticism from the economic to the personal, with an emphasis of how institutions use coercion to maintain power over groups, and individuals use power to control others. Foucault was positively Sadean in his view of power. Throw in Jacques Derrida's ability to prove that black is white and up is down, and you had the perfect formula for transforming society into a free for all of conflicting "victims."

Your greatest error is in assuming this is addressing some sort of coherent goal. Perhaps its earliest theoreticians thought that getting different groups within an industrialized society to feel oppressed might make them more inclined to revolt against capitalism, but by the time it trickled down to "community organizers" by way of the French, it tended to re-conform itself to the traditional American labor desire of getting a bigger slice of the pie, not tossing the pie out altogether.


This is the ONLY academically supported response here and it renders not only the original post to irrelevancy, but also all the follow up counter points, as well. So for those in disagreement, if you are NOT familiar with any of the works noted above, you have NO basis, nor the ability, to formulate any sort of rebuttal.


originally posted by: DJW001
Then what is their ultimate goal? A classless society? If that were achieved they would lose their elite status, would they not?

I have suggested that the concept of "cultural Marxism" has been developed by reactionaries to justify their opposition to creating a less stratified society. Just invoking the name of Marx is designed to raise red flags, pun intended. Although the inspiration for the current cacophony of groups vying for victimhood came out of Marxist theory, it was the introduction of the Structuralists, who were rebelling against the Marxist orthodoxy of the French intellectual establishment, that is the immediate cause. "Cultural Marxism" is just a label designed to justify resistance to social change.

Who do you believe is "really" orchestrating all these diverse social movements? What is their ultimate goal? Who are these idiots of use to?


In fact, is the OP familiar with ANY academic works that actually use the phrase "Cultural Marxism"?


originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NihilistSanta
Can you provide an example of an actual Marxist using the phrase "Cultural Marxism?"


I'd also like to see at least ONE academic citation that helped spawn this disjointed lecture, posted by NihilistSanta, but I doubt any will be forthcoming (Also, before any of you naysayers attempt to do so, G. Edward Griffin DOES NOT COUNT!).
edit on 11-2-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I made mention of most of that and pointed to it. Its an example and nothing more. As far as the theories appeal well I did state and this is just a theory that those groups are more sensitive to cultural changes. It doesn't negate the theory or information. The thread is not about the french structuralist. You have brought that group up several times. Why don't you go into greater detail. For some reason you feel they have a greater influence on the current situation? or just current leftist thought in general? What do they have to do with critical theory and inverse oppression as applied to cultural Marxism and political correctness?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: DJW001
The thread is not about the french structuralist. You have brought that group up several times. Why don't you go into greater detail. For some reason you feel they have a greater influence on the current situation? or just current leftist thought in general? What do they have to do with critical theory and inverse oppression as applied to cultural Marxism and political correctness?


You don't know the answer to that?

If you do not, it almost surely means that you do not have the basic knowledge necessary to even begin debating with DJW001, on equal footing. Again, if you are NOT familiar with any of the works noted above, you have NO basis, nor the ability, to formulate any sort of rebuttal, let alone your original premise.

BTW, DJW001 does address this:


originally posted by: DJW001

-Although the inspiration for the current cacophony of groups vying for victimhood came out of Marxist theory, it was the introduction of the Structuralists, who were rebelling against the Marxist orthodoxy of the French intellectual establishment, that is the immediate cause.

-The Frankfurt School and the French Structuralists were not Marxists. They incorporated some Marxist ideas while seeking an alternative to it.

-Marx seldom bothered with cultural issues beyond the capital/labor class divide, and if you don't know that....

-That's why they keep pointing to the Frankfurt School, which had little impact in America, and seem oblivious to the French Structuralists, who are still very influential in left wing American thought.


The paragraphs posted below perfectly summarizes the idea of "Cultural Marxism"


originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: NihilistSanta

"Cultural Marxism" is, from what I see, a lazy right wing catchphrase. It's not meant to shut down the opposition but to impress one's fellow travellers. It's the kind of thing one hears on US talk radio or reads on WorldNewsDaily.

What there is a post-Postmodern multiplicity of ideas and voices, many without any ideological framework, competing to be heard in a media with the memory span of a goldfish and the echo chambers of the internet. Instead of confronting them ad hoc, it's easier to give in to fear and instead address your friends with knowing "in" phrases. It's easier to cherry pick from the Communist Manifesto - which was never intended as a party platform - or to attack ideas you made up and put in your opponents' mouths.

What I'm getting at is that "Cultural Marxism", in 2016, is a dishonest term to cloak dishonest reasoning.

edit on 11-2-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Again the french structuralist are not focused on here because we are talking about the FRANKFURT SCHOOL and its affect on western academia,media and the greater culture.

We are discussing the AFFECTS as it pertains to current issues like culture war and forced immigration and multiculturalism. We are discussing the co-opting of resistance through anti-semitism.

Naziism has gone by the way side but there are neo-nazis just as there are neo-marxist. It doesn't negate the influence of the original doctrines or ideas. No one self identifies as a cultural marxist. They may call themselves a leftist, progressive, socialist, marxist etc. The aims of cultural marxism are not economic or political so the discussion of later leftist thoughts and influence in regards to politics or economics is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: boohoo

Again the french structuralist are not focused on here because we are talking about the FRANKFURT SCHOOL and its affect on western academia,media and the greater culture.

We are discussing the AFFECTS as it pertains to current issues like culture war and forced immigration and multiculturalism. We are discussing the co-opting of resistance through anti-semitism.

Naziism has gone by the way side but there are neo-nazis just as there are neo-marxist. It doesn't negate the influence of the original doctrines or ideas. No one self identifies as a cultural marxist. They may call themselves a leftist, progressive, socialist, marxist etc. The aims of cultural marxism are not economic or political so the discussion of later leftist thoughts and influence in regards to politics or economics is irrelevant.


The fact that you don't even know you are, indeed, discussing french structuralist concepts is distressing.
edit on 11-2-2016 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

What is distressing is you are arguing that we are talking about the same thing. So your greater point would be what exactly?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: boohoo

What is distressing is you are arguing that we are talking about the same thing. So your greater point would be what exactly?


If that's the case, than why do you keep calling it "Cultural Marxism"



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join