Discussing Cultural Marxism and the Reactionary Movements That Oppose It.

a reply to: DJW001

Think of it like Social Darwinism. Darwin didn't address his theory to human society at all, but his theory go applied to justify it.

So Marx didn't apply his theories to society. But the ideas are there in the new theory to apply his theory to society and social thought and train how we think.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DJW001

Think of it like Social Darwinism. Darwin didn't address his theory to human society at all, but his theory go applied to justify it.

So Marx didn't apply his theories to society. But the ideas are there in the new theory to apply his theory to society and social thought and train how we think.

NO NO NO, that's too nuanced and weird Maaaannnnnnn. Marxists never said "Culutral Marxism"...Maaaaan. Vote Bernie for Social Democracy......Maaaaan!

Most people with a critical interest in the Western policies and practices of multiculturalism and mass-immigration have probably heard of Cultural Marxism. This 20th century strain of Marxism produced by the Frankfurt School a.k.a. the Institute for Social Research in Germany, and later in New York where it was affiliated with Columbia University, is responsible for Critical Theory, PC, repressive tolerance, "diversity is our strength", and other insidious tactics and strategies that are gradually stripping away the cultural traditions, ethnic identity, national sovereignty, and historical memory of the European peoples.

But do most people know the link of cultural Marxism, in particular its strategy of the "long march through the institutions", to another socialist society famed for its "gradualism" and its connection to the British Labour Party? This society is called the Fabian Society and heavily influenced, indeed was a precursor to, the creation of the Frankfurt School.

There are many shared aspects between the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School:

Both claim to promote socialism, the counter-ideology of capitalism
Both have been and are funded by extremely wealthy people and groups who attained their affluence as capitalists
Both promote the radical transformation of Western civilization through Socialist utopianism
Both reject revolutionary Marxism and instead use and advocate "gradualism", a step-by-step long-term plan to change the character of the West through stealth and infiltration

The Socialist-Capitalist Alliance: the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, and Big Business: Part I

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DJW001

Think of it like Social Darwinism. Darwin didn't address his theory to human society at all, but his theory go applied to justify it.

So Marx didn't apply his theories to society. But the ideas are there in the new theory to apply his theory to society and social thought and train how we think.

At least that's the conspiracy theory. The more I look in to it, the more it looks like a new take on the usual Anti-Semitic BS. 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.

a reply to: DJW001

For those who value culture, it is a deal breaker. Not only is socialism not a viable economic system but, it is a cultural solvent whether it admits it as a goal or as an inevitable consequence of material equality.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: DJW001

For those who value culture, it is a deal breaker. Not only is socialism not a viable economic system but, it is a cultural solvent whether it admits it as a goal or as an inevitable consequence of material equality.

What do you mean by "culture?" Are you using it in the anthropological sense, or in the sense of "arts and humanities?"

a reply to: DJW001

I mean it broadly. Each country which has gone down that road has been irrevocably softened.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Thanks for the reply; gives me more to process though.

My observation has been that in many respects, the racial divide is manufactured. In fact, you might say its an industry of sorts. Language and code words are important to understand. So, I find that most of the "social justice" types are nothing more than Marxists under another name. Racism is taught in the schools and nurtured in the churches, (Reverend Wright being an example) and celebrated in music. They prey on the weak minded and ply the pitiable masses with nostrums of inequality and stir up resentments and class envy and social jealousy. They have quite successfully splintered the society into competing interest groups and this makes political solutions nigh onto impossible.

Only God knows where this will end.........and he's not talking, at least not to me.

Good write up, thinking, and an impressive topic.

I'm not sure of the term "cultural Marxism", as it is more comparable to Stalinism in its methods.

We can trace much of this methodology to Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School and the "New Left", whom advocated a method such as the one prevalent today.

Notable quotes from Repressive Tolerance

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

These same conditions render the critique of such tolerance abstract and academic, and the proposition that the balance between tolerance toward the Right and toward the Left would have to be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function of tolerance becomes only an unrealistic speculation. Indeed, such a redressing seems to be tantamount to the establishment of a "right of resistance" to the point of subversion. There is not, there cannot be any such right for any group or individual against a constitutional government sustained by a majority of the population. But I believe that there is a "natural right" of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate. Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it--not for personal advantages and revenge, but for their share of humanity. There is no other judge over them than the constituted authorities, the police, and their own conscience. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one. Since they will be punished, they know the risk, and when they are willing to take it, no third person, and least of all the educator and intellectual, has the right to preach them abstention.

In the United States, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of influencing, in any effective way, this majority is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the radical opposition. Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities - not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power. And the Left does not have the purchasing power because it is the Left. These conditions impose upon the radical minorities a strategy which is in essence a refusal to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly indiscriminate but in fact discriminate tolerance, for example, a strategy of protesting against the alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right (or Center) with one for the Left. Not 'equal' but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

Within the solid framework of pre-established inequality and power, tolerance is practiced indeed. Even outrageous opinions are expressed, outrageous incidents are televised; and the critics of established policies are interrupted by the same number of commercials as the conservative advocates. Are these interludes supposed to counteract the sheer weight, magnitude, and continuity of system-publicity, indoctrination which operates playfully through the endless commercials as well as through the entertainment?

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

a reply to: kosmicjack

That speaks to the co-opting resistance I was speaking of. Some people have latched on to the Jew/Zionist issue and are using it to recruit among the alternative right. Its hard to find decent sources on video that don't come across as you said. Detractors use this to discredit the legitimate concerns and information.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: DJW001

I mean it broadly. Each country which has gone down that road has been irrevocably softened.

Well, socialist countries usually have a thriving art scene because the State will support theaters, dance troupes, symphony orchestras and so forth as a means of providing full employment.

I have been busier than expected so haven't been able to add as much to the thread as I would like. I threw this thread up this morning before work in an attempt to get the ball rolling. I am working on gathering more information to present. I appreciate the responses so far and intend on answering as much as I can.

Les Misanthrope has laid out an excellent quote from one of the founders. This is how they view the application of justice. That somehow inverse oppression leads to normalization. Marcuse knows exactly what it leads to and it isn't justice but others have taken up the banner.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Well, perhaps I should have said this instead.

I will refer to one of your videos, and the content within. In the video, the fellows commentary placed women's liberation related issues, under the bracket of cultural Marxism, as well as many other things.

But do you know what REALLY drives that sort of change, at least here in Britain? The fact that since the signing of Magna Carta, and continuing today, our nation has been on a slow, steady climb away from monarchy. Slowly, ever so slowly, our nation has removed more and more power from its Royal family. Ever since that change began, other things have begun to change also.

Not every change has been positive. I cannot carry a sword on my own nations soil for example. I find this distasteful. However, many other changes have come and gone, many ages too. The more time has passed, the more basic rights like food and water, healthcare for all, education for all, and the like, have come into existence here, where they were not before. I do not see good changes being made today. But I do see many of the things referrenced by your thread, as being positives, not negatives in the main. It is right and proper that the movement to free women from inequality, and to free persons whose skin is not white, from oppression, and to give rise to equality for persons of various sexual preferences, genders, and lifestyles the freedom to be who they are was successful. If these things were not right and proper, then neither was the signing of Magna Carta.

Those changes have come on strong lately, and things have been polarised to the point where they are upside down. But you have to understand Nhilist Santa, that from the perspective of a British citizen, change, cultural change is normal! Our culture has been in one or another state of flux for as long as it has been a culture! The Romans, the French, Dutch, Germans, Norse, and of course the Roman Catholic Church, have all moved our nations cultural foundations about. However, that does not mean that young children no longer wake up wishing to be Knights, or princesses, or dragons, or some other thing from the mythos and legend of our land. Neither does the fact that women are liberated, that people of colour are not considered by the law, or by reasonable people, as being any different to any other persons, aside from in the ways that every human is different to every other human.

So is it cultural Marxism, if it follows a pattern which has existed for longer than say for example the United States of America? Because the changes we are seeing today, stem from much further back in time than the
Russian origin suggested by the terminology they are all being described by!

Let's not be foolish about this, I recognise that things are bonkers here at the moment. Things have been skewed to the point where people who believe in equal rights for everyone, can be tormented by the courts as if they did not, without proof or reason, on the behalf of persons who might have been looked at differently than they are today, if we were back in the mists of time, when everyone was living in filth and no one had any bloody money for hot water or lighting or any other bloody thing. But you will note that we have come on an awfully long way since those days, in many respects. We might be getting the changes a little wrong these days, be overzealous in our pursuit of some of the equalities we have inserted into our nation over the last couple of decades. However our nation is as yet, a better place for the changes, and if we can balance certain aspects of those changes so that no one is favoured above anyone else, then this Marxism nonsense will turn out to be just another groundbreaking movement in British political history, and have nothing to do with the pathetic ramblings of faux intelligentsia touting rubbish think in some American university, waaaaaaaay after the first step along this path was taken.

Cultural Marxism, let me introduce 1215, the year that the Magna Carta was signed, and the year that practices which remind us very much of the effects of cultural Marxism, like more distributed rights, and less inequality, started to happen in Britain.

Some more points from the wiki entry:

"Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation."

"In Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism, and progressed closer to American pragmatism."

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: greencmp

Feel free to go into natural conservation.

"For it's own good" I understand completely. It is quite strange how leftist ideologies present to know "what is good" but have no proof of results. I found some interesting clips of Thomas Sowell that go into this that relate to the subject.



This second vid I found he discusses culture especially pertaining to blacks. I found his views interesting as it pertains to economics granting freedom and success over politics.



No form of Marxism has brought about lasting freedom and this is why I meant that western culture needs to be preserved. It was that culture that has fostered the economic environment that allowed for success not academia's theories on various social issues and definitely not Marxist economic theories or the social derivatives.

ETA: Another vid of Sowell that touches on many of the concerns I am addressing.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

I am looking for a good enough synopsis to justify dropping it in as a self contained statement without derailing the cultural theme too much.

Sowell is fantastic, thanks for the links.

Mark Steyn is also a great commentator on multiculturalism.

I want to add I mentioned "leftist" but this isn't to get into partisanship. The real point is to show that the effects are real and detrimental while also making people aware that both ends of the spectrum are being set up to attack each other in a manufactured culture war.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Climate change a back door to communism and the United Nations admits it

Power: As evidence discredits global warming, resistance to such facts by green elites reveals their real aim is bringing socialism in through the back door. But don't take our word for it. Listen to the climate change boss at the U.N.

Christiana Figueres, with the lumpy title of executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), came right out and said it: Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China.

China is "doing it right," she told Bloomberg News Tuesday. "They actually want to breathe air they don't have to look at," she said with a straight face.

Maybe that's because for her information, China had breathed air it can see for decades under its command economy. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points out that on the same day Figueres was praising China's top-down political system and denigrating democracies, China's capital, Beijing, was engulfed in a massive smog cloud that prompted authorities to order children, the sick and the elderly to stay inside.

Communist China has had one pollution crisis after another for decades. It's also the home to black rivers, polluted groundwater, destroyed lakes and some of the world's worst food standards — all fruits of a command economy where the public has no right to complain about anything because government knows best.

Morrissey notes that the same smog blighting China now was a problem five years ago, during the 2008 Olympics. Some sign of "doing it right."

The only thing clear here is the real motive of global warm-mongers. They're less interested in cleaning up the Earth than in controlling human beings in the name of "the common good" — just as the Bolsheviks once did, first in Russia, and then in China, where the tyranny continues to this day.

Global warming alarmists "want to change us, they want to change our behavior, our way of life, our values and preferences," according to a man who knows a thing or two about communist regimes, former Czech President Vaclav Klaus. In a speech to Australia's Institute of Public Affairs in 2011, he stressed:

"They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate."

a reply to: greencmp

This goes back to the incremental approach that is employed which has been hastened through social/cultural methods. Manufactured need, politicizing science and social issues, shaming and a way of taking advantage of altruism. Most of this headed up by people radicalized through application of critical theory and cultural marxism during the counter culture and after.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I want to add I mentioned "leftist" but this isn't to get into partisanship. The real point is to show that the effects are real and detrimental while also making people aware that both ends of the spectrum are being set up to attack each other in a manufactured culture war.

When slavery was abolished, that was a major step towards a classless society. Was that "Cultural Marxism" at work? When women got the vote, that was a major step towards a classless society. Was that "Cultural Marxism" at work? Societies have been changing since the dawn of time. Did "Cultural Marxism" begin millennia before Marx was born?