Cutural Marxism is a Sociological Technology

Titles are a way to organize thinking and help with the learning process by giving a hint about the content that they handle. The slash and burn agriculture technique is a fitting allegory to the goal of Cultural Marxism.

"Cultural Marxism" is a sociological technology. Mostly it is destructive, like the slash and burn of slash and burn agriculture. The "cultural" part describes the target to be destroyed. Every one learns culture during the course of their life. Rather than trying to change the learned culture in adults, the destruction of a culture leaves a void that can be partially or wholly filled by whoever gets the chance offer one to the children. Education, in the sense of psychological learning, is the method by which a new culture can be put in the place of a void. But destruction of the old culture is the sine qua non of astroturf, top down, revolution.


The people who would be in a position to reseed the burnt out area are by necessity people of power. There is an American aristocracy. Parts of it led the American Revolution, worked the Constitution into place, and fought on both sides of the War to Prevent Local Self Government, kept fractional Reserve Banking legal, made the central fiat money banking system, got the USA into WW1, financed the Bolshevik Party and locked in centralization with WW2 and the Cold War.

The aristocracy has good people and bad people, athletes and bookworms, individualistic economic entrepreneurs and collectivistic political entrepreneurs. The "Marxist" part of the culture destruction technology has many members in the American aristocracy. How could it not? They, the "Marxists", are always collectivist, which is the connection to Marx. They believe in the "greater good for the greater number" by decree of dispensing power. Before Marx they always favored big central government over local government, hence the War Between the States, the Protection of Northeastern Industry Tariff, and federally subsidized railroad scandals -- the biggest scandals of the century. After Marx they favored socialism over the free market society. Since WW1 they have been Progressives, Communists, Socialists, and Social Democrats -- all variations of collectivism.

The major fact about the "Marxism" is that the collectivists have had the plurality in government since at least the 1930's. FDR had thousands of Stalin Communists making policy in the US Government until the cold war. The Coms got away with that because of the collectivistic nature inherent in big government. Apparently communist policies look like Modern Democratic Party policies to Democrats. In general, all of those folks came from the American aristocracy. If the out right communists are gone from the government, the collectivistic aristocrats are still there. "Cultural Marxism" is how the collectivist part of the American aristocracy will slash and burn away the evolved culture so they can do the seeding.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

If there is a bright side it is that socialists are no longer in denial, they openly admit it. Although they mostly don't know what it is, terminology is important.

It would be impossible to engage in constructive conversation otherwise.

I think this year will determine the fate not only of these united states but, western civilization itself.

a reply to: greencmp

Jaques Barzun said in times of revolution people pay attention and learn new ideas. He said that about the Reformation, and the American and French Revolutions.

I don't see anything actually happening, just faster or slower decent into totalitarianism, which might nice for awhile.

But I didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down in the future either.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I think there are people who just don't know what the implications are, hopefully most people.

France is under permanent martial law and Europe is likely to soon follow.

Interesting times = dirty fan

"Tell ten people to tell ten people"

Revolutions can grow exponentially and come from out of nowhere.

Lack of food and water would slam this one down, I think.

ETA-- The French were already starving at the beginning of the French Revolution and America had plenty of surplus farmland in 1776. We would have to make food from grass or something. Mobile algae protein manufacturing trucks or some such chemical production.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
"Tell ten people to tell ten people"

Revolutions can grow exponentially and come from out of nowhere.

Lack of food and water would slam this one down, I think.

I don't think armed revolution is helpful or likely but, our political system allows for peaceful revolution.

It is equally possible that we will return to constitutional rule of law or become an authoritarian state of either the socialist or fascist variety.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
"Tell ten people to tell ten people"

Revolutions can grow exponentially and come from out of nowhere.

Lack of food and water would slam this one down, I think.

I don't think armed revolution is helpful or likely but, our political system allows for peaceful revolution.

It is equally possible that we will return to constitutional rule of law or become an authoritarian state of either the socialist or fascist variety.

I'm an odd ball, I am for individual liberty, but also a collectivist.

Out of control crony capitalism has wrecked the western world.

But I don't think dictatorial government control is the answer.

What ever happened to people, especially the most wealthy , knowing and willingly providing a decent wage to their workers?

There was a time when today's Walton's would have been pariahs for the way they hoard wealth, now they are idolized..... Sad days these.

ETA- I think the answer is social pressure, not violence, or authoritarian control.

a reply to: Sargeras

State economic intervention is incapable of making lasting corrections to any circumstance. It cannot improve the situation, it can only exacerbate existing problems.

We have two choices; to return to free market principals (which we do not currently observe) or to become a socialism.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sargeras

State economic intervention is incapable of making lasting corrections to any circumstance. It cannot improve the situation, it can only exacerbate existing problems.

We have two choices; to return to free market principals (which we do not currently observe) or to become a socialism.

If it was actually a free market, and we had control of our borders, none of this would be an issue.

But decades of cronyism, and unregulated immigration, along side the absolute terrible trade deals..... America is sinking

I only see the same 2 options you mentioned.

a reply to: Sargeras

I choose option one.

There are somewhat involved explanations that would likely calm your ire about entrepreneurs and how and why they are necessary. Suffice it to say that stewards of capital in an unhampered market environment are the mandatories of consumers.

Laissez-faire is a consumer's democracy.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sargeras

I choose option one.

There are somewhat involved explanations that would likely calm your ire about entrepreneurs and how and why they are necessary. Suffice it to say that stewards of capital in an unhampered market environment are the mandatories of consumers.

Laissez-faire is a consumer's democracy.

But entrepreneurs aren't the problem.

It is wealth hoarding that is the problem.

The Spice must flow!!!

If it doesn't we get today's economic situation.

Several people hoarding it all, is very bad, much worse than if the same several people had nothing and that same wealth was circulated throughout the economy.

And no, moving it around wallstreet us not moving it through the economy.

Which is what is happening now.

All the fat cats recovered long ago, all the average joes... Not so much

a reply to: Sargeras

Capital is always allocated, there is no hoarding as such. The myth of the "velocity of money" is just that.

Wall street is a mess because of government intervention which destroyed wealth by sponsoring booms which misdirected capital into malinvestments. Government intervention then attempted to fix the damage it caused by repeating the same mistake.

It looks fake because it is fake, that's not capitalism.

a reply to: Sargeras

I am not sure how you can be individually free in a collectivist system unless the collective was entirely the choice of those participating in it.

Those kinds of collectives are exceedingly rare and they never originate from the top down. Those are imposed collectives and by definition not free.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's had its role to play in art, architecture, and culture as well. Once Marcel Duchemps signed a urinal and called it art, the traditional virtues of beauty and truth spiralled down the proverbial drain. Now someone can photograph a crucifix in piss and make millions. People staring at a canvas painted white in a posh gallery need someone to tell them why it has meaning, why it's important, why it is necessary, and that person always turns out to be the aristocracy you speak of, who think their inferiors need to be told what is right and wrong. And sadly, people believe it.

I wonder how much of it has to do with vanity. I'm beginning to think the whole movement towards revolution, which always seems to end in some version or other of the Reign of terror, is all for show, so some actor can gain advantage and favor. This is what I now see in these activists. They can offer no other means to help people; the politics is their morality.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Good overview. Marxism or really any collectivist system which is enabled by centralized state power feels that by altering the environment they can alter culture and they can to a degree. They view us like sick lab rats who are in a bad environment if they could just enable the institutions for their classless society then the lab rats would have a new environment to readjust and become optimal. Its just never worked in reality and the proponents have a litany of excuses. There was not enough time, they didn't have the resources, external pressures from capitalist or imperialist, cultural resistance, wars and so forth.

You mention the aristocracy and I think they ultimately merged with these ideas as you say out of a necessity to survive. An aristocracy will always form within any system and generally have the most access to power. Even a collectivist system will have stratification. America was really a sort of Timocracy at its founding. They really felt that you should have some vested interest and claim to have a say in how the government was ran or to be a citizen. People dont even understand the concepts. They have been taught to view everything through critical reasoning and to only observe the negative effects of the past without understanding the context and by imposing modern morals and values.

I just have to wonder sometimes at the willingness of others to help this decline along. A general cultural pessimism has made people unwitting accomplices. The rest is accomplished through a deliberate misunderstanding or replacement of the true aims and goals of Marxist collectivism. People who envision some mild utopian socialism never realize how its just an incremental step to totalitarian collectivism. The only way it can stay assembled against the many interest of the people is to by force impose the will of the state.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

You mention the aristocracy and I think they ultimately merged with these ideas as you say out of a necessity to survive.

America and the entire Western World Culture came close to defacto Capitalist Anarchy in the late 19th Century. Before Bismarck claimed that government was the provider and before the United States passed the Interstate Commerce Commission, there were no laws regulating trade and no taxes other than tariffs and tolls. The economy grew 4% per year in deflation, so the value of money went up every year. The price of most things went down even faster than deflation due to increased productivity. This is when the American Tycoons were making their mega fortunes, in an economy of falling prices that had a minimum of governmental control.

Some in the aristocracy must have wanted to keep their position in society, to keep on being at he top by reason of inheritance rather than accomplishment. A large central government is one way to do that. Socialism needs someone to run it and who better than the folks who can afford to go to college and already know better than every one else. I agree that centralization sold as fair play socialism was a survival strategy for would be controllers.

a reply to: TheTory

the politics is their morality.

Evolved social relationships and evolved morality seems incomprehensible to them.

I don't know much about art or architecture, although I would imagine that the Communists push small cubic dwellings and large public works in architecture.

M. Stanton Evans has written two droll books about the Communists in the US Government who made policies like giving away Eastern Europe and China to Soviets. And to this day the media says there were no Communist "Spies" in the McCarthy hearings.

Who needs spies when you control the other government's policies?

And there were spies too.

The books are
Stalin's Secret Agents

and
Blackl isted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

These were written from the information released during the time the Kremlin was open to the West.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

They definitely use art. Its interesting I was just looking on Wikipedia and came across this entry in art history regarding Marxist

Marxist Art History was refined in the department of Art History at UCLA with scholars such as T.J. Clark, O.K. Werckmeister, David Kunzle, Theodor W. Adorno, and Max Horkheimer. T.J. Clark was the first art historian writing from a Marxist perspective to abandon vulgar Marxism. He wrote Marxist art histories of several impressionist and realist artists, including Gustave Courbet and Édouard Manet. These books focused closely on the political and economic climates in which the art was created

.

I definitely recognize some names from the Frankfurt School there like Horkheimer and Adorno. They used critical theory to reinterpret art through history as expressions of class struggle. This is old school though. The arts are used now to shape the cultural mood. Art and music is linked to rebellion. Music is hedonist driven nihilism. I can think of how cinema especially is used to push utopian visions of collectivism and hellish capitalist dystopias. Then it is used to attack the cultural norms and values. Creating tension between genders, sexual identities, minorities, economic classes and so on.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

I watched the longer video you posted in your Cultural Marxism thread the other day.

I have noticed myself that an individualist is usually the bad guy. In the movies, Serial Killers are the typical example offered of an exceptionally self sufficient person following his calling in the real world.

I thought that the good guy usually had some bad fortune to justify his violence. The idea that the misfortune is an indictment against tradition or society makes sense and obviously has an indoctrination effect. Especially with repeated viewings. It is always the same movie with variations.

Also there is never a realistic society depicted that is not either evil or socialist ( hierarchical). Never ever.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Yeah its interesting to review movies through this lens. I was thinking about the matrix. so many people think that film is about fighting an oppressive system but that system was nothing but a recreation of our own system. The ones who were in Zion lived as a classless collective partying it up. Meanwhile Neo is the new man. The one who comes to break the system and those norms.