The Postmodern Socialist

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Problem is, socialism and postmodernism are antithetical. Socialism is collectivist and postmodernism is individualist.

Liberalism can be postmodernist. Socialism can't: if its post modern it can't be socialism.

That's funny because postmodernism is generally regarded as an attack on the enlightenment and liberalism. Care to cite an example?

An example of what? These are fundamental concepts.

Postmodernism can be an attack on whatever it likes. It doesn't make it socialism any more than my disliking red meat makes me a vegetarian.

Jesus Christ.

Would a LITTLE TINY SMIDGEON OF ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE actually kill some of you people???

First of all it was called the Frankfurt School. It is a "school of thought" or a theoretical framework or a philosophical schema.

You can find out 1000% more than has been presented here from the fricking Wikipedia page. Here.

It began as a loose assemblage of German intellectuals in the Weimar period. (1918-1931)

Someday, I hope some of you crack a book long enough to figure out that what is called Marxism or Marxist theory is not socialism, or Communism or Stalinism, Maoism or any governmental system..

The intellectuals and scholars of "the Frankfurt School" were not merely Marxists (and certainly not this tripe about "Cultural Marxism" that has been created by nutjobs on the "American right-wing."

Although loosely affiliated as intellectuals, the Frankfurt School theoreticians spoke from the perspective of a common paradigm (open-ended, self-critical approach) based upon Marxist and Hegelian premises of idealist philosophy. To fill the omissions of 19th-century classical Marxism, which could not address 20th-century social problems, they sought answers in the philosophies of antipositivist sociology, psychoanalysis, existentialism, etc. The School’s sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Georg Lukács.

So, not just Marxism, eh?

But, but, but what about CULTURAL MARXISM (**WOOOO BOOGA BOOGA**)

In the ideology of right-wing politics, the term Cultural Marxism identifies a conspiracy theory that portrays the critical-theory scholarship of the Frankfurt School as part of a continuing left-wing effort to destroy and replace Western culture.

...

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s. The conspiracy-theory usage of the term originated in the essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’ ” (1992), in which Michael Minnicino said that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts, as a form of Cultural pessimism, and shaped the Counterculture of the 1960s (e.g The Beatles) in likeness to the Wandervogel (wandering bird) youth culture of the Ascona commune in the 19th century, in order to subvert the value system of Western civilization. Minnicino’s essay was published by the Schiller Institute, a branch organization of the LaRouche movement that promoted conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism.

And while we love us some conspiracy here at ATS, let's not wander too far afield from the ACTUAL KNOWN FACTS of these matters.

K?

a reply to: introvert

Not really.

Most people are forced to send their children to public schools. Think what they could do with the thousands per child the state spends on those kids.

Can you argue that many inner city children get that kind of quality education out of their local schools? Most big cities spend $10K+ per child which is easily enough where I live to afford a decent private education. You cannot tell me the public schools those kids are stuck in provide the equivalent.

Why not? Because the socialist structuring of large districts where it is assumed children *must* go with no options allows for widespread waste and incompetence at all levels so that only pennies on the dollar ever trickle down through that structure to benefit the kids.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

No, Cultural Marxism is not an empty cliche.

It comes from the Frankfort school where they studied ways to use social technique and theory to implement the workers' revolt against capitalism.

The dominant theory they came up with critical theory. Sound familiar? It should. It has become very fashionable in certain areas of "studies" in our universities. You often see it called critical race theory where it used to justify the idea that because a bunch of old white men wrote the foundational documents of the nation, then the nation is from its roots onward a racist, oppressive one.

It is the theoretical roots of the ideology and philosophy used to justify the people who say that no minority can ever be racist because they have no institutional power no matter what they do or say.

These were a bunch of Marxists at the Frankfort School who looked for ways to upend capitalism through social/cultural means and CRT and other means of critical theory are the way they did it. The common shorthand for these schools of thought are cultural Marxism because the end aim is to impose a Marxist society through culture rather then through the economy.

Which is what I said. Marxist ideas about culture. Apart from the last sentence. It's been a few decades but I don't recall Marx advocating an economic route to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And the bits in the middle. Like the bit where you write " It is the theoretical roots of the ideology and philosophy used to justify the people who say that no minority can ever be racist because they have no institutional power no matter what they do or say.saying the minorities can never be racist."

Hogwash, even when we strip away the verbiage.

Critical theory - of whatever ideological shade - has never made much impact outside of colleges and universities. It's about ways of seeing and can be thought provoking but, in the real world, its ultimately sterile. When did Leavis or Barthes or Foucault or Gramsci make the slightest bit of difference in the real world?

And that's not taking into account the way the world has changed since 1989. With that in mind, what effect is a group that lost its way when Hitler came to power 85 odd years ago going to have?

I've only ever met one person who took Erich Fromm seriously. Nobody has read Herbert Marcuse since Abbie Hoffman cut his hair, although you can see some of his thinking in the home- and unschooling movement.

Is it covered in university courses? It should be for its academic value. It's a lot more nuanced than you give it credit.

Is Critical Race Theory the same as the Frankfurt school's ideas? No, although there are some connections. You can find similar connections between Nazism and the liberal humanism that gave us the US Constiution but no sane person outside North Korea would suggest they were the same thing.

So, even if Cultural Marxism was a thing, it would be nothing more than a paper tiger.

LOL ...

Ah yes, the "right-wing" solution to problems with our educational system.

1. Get rid of or severely hamstring the Federal Department of Education.

2. Cut Federal funding to education.

3. Give whatever public money is left to private "charter schools" (anyone want to actually talk about socialism? Funding private private business with our tax dollars.)

4. While "charter schools" have a higher rate of graduation (gee, you think students get more attention in a class of 10 than a class of 50?) the percentage of charter school graduates who graduate from college is 25%.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice try.

It all boils down to plain old Marxism in the simple end.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice try.

It all boils down to plain old Marxism in the simple end.

Wow, what a shocker that you want to promote insipid ignorance and nonsense.

ETA: So humor us Xuench ... what is "Plain old Marxism" in your own words. Explain it to us.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.

...which has been proven to work.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.

...which has been proven to work.

Did you find it as strange as I did, with all the fear-mongering in the OP, that this was the only example of actual "socialist policy" that could be sputtered out?

What exactly are we all supposed to be so frightened of again?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You already did that.

Good work.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.

...which has been proven to work.

Up to a point.

Let's not forget the famines that Stalin's collectivisation brought about.

a reply to: ketsuko

Most people are forced to send their children to public schools. Think what they could do with the thousands per child the state spends on those kids.

Ya, they are forced to because they have no other option. Capitalism does not provide enough wealth to enough people to make other options reasonable for the vast majority of people. So capitalism relies on the state and collective wealth of the people to provide a basic level of education, and then relies on those educated people to man their capitalist operations.

A two-fold kick in the balls.

Can you argue that many inner city children get that kind of quality education out of their local schools? Most big cities spend $10K+ per child which is easily enough where I live to afford a decent private education.

The economy and costs in a large metro city is not comparable to po-dunk Missouri, which is where I believe you live, or even some of the bigger metro areas in the midwest.

You have to move resources to where they are needed as they are needed.

Why not? Because the socialist structuring of large districts where it is assumed children *must* go with no options allows for widespread waste and incompetence at all levels so that only pennies on the dollar ever trickle down through that structure to benefit the kids.

It does have it's many flaws. No argument from me. But at least you are willing to admit that the education system is socialist in nature and benefits the many, while others seem to deny that such programs are socialist whatsoever.

In a capitalist system, there are no options either. You pay for it yourself, or you go without. The rest, have nothing.

Are you rich? No you're not. But your kid, i believe you have one, is able to get an education.

You're welcome.

a reply to: Bone75

Collective farming worked great in China.

Especially from 1958 - 1962.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

You already did that.

Good work.

Now come on Xuenchen ... share your wisdom with us in something other than quips and emoticons ... explain Marxism to us, please?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

.. explain Marxism to us, please?

Don't get your hopes up.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Gryphon66

.. explain Marxism to us, please?

Don't get your hopes up.

I'm not. However, when someone continually inserts quips and tags into conversations while trying to maintain a mysterious air of proposed wisdom, I like to give them at least the opportunity.

a reply to: introvert

Another aspect of our public school system is that it allows the "caretaker parent' to get out of the house and actually work for a few hours, which can be so vitally important to a lower-income family.

The really revolting part in all this is that there is not a single American here posting who has not benefited both directly and indirectly from our mixed economy. Everyone of us had access to resources that we would have never had in a country with governments that didn't provide infrastructure, utilities, roads, schools, hospitals, basic medical care, fire and police protection, etc. etc.

Now so many who have built their lives on the availability of those resources want to change the rules of the game.

#retch

a reply to: ketsuko

That's not entirely the fault of the education system, that's to blame on a lot of other social factors. Teachers, of whom I know quite a few, are expected to teach restricted curriculum, teach to a test (rote learning) and on top of such things, they are often a role model and part parent to the majority of kids....because parents get to interact with their children for what, 2 or 3 hours day at best? Because both parents are forced to work just to meet fiscal needs.

The industries I am talking about would be banking (as we know our federal reserve can do what it wants with little or no oversight,) possibly defense...because for now, our defense contractors are controlling our government...not the government controlling the defense industries.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.

...which has been proven to work.

Up to a point.

Let's not forget the famines that Stalin's collectivisation brought about.

You mean the famines that the Kulaks brought about?