Cultural Marxism':

For more proof ...

We have nothing to lose but our chains ... Here is whole page of YouTube vids of minority causes chanting "We have nothing to lose but our chains" which is a slogan taken from the Communist Manifesto.

That is where Marxism went.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

This is where it is. The movement is social now, not worker related.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: xBWOMPx

I do not want to get into an argument with you. But you really need to think rhetorically when it comes to Marxist mindset.
At least look into YouTube videos explaining what he had in mind. But don't forget, when he lived it was a different age.

There is a book he wrote that is very simple to understand. People can add there own explanation all they want but it's pretty simple what his system leads to everytime, failure and complete control of people and every aspect of there life. I only believe socialism will work when we get rid of 3 things, money, big government, military, but that wont happen. I am not wanting to argue either but that is the truth.

a reply to: xBWOMPx

Let's be plain - socialism will work when we get rid of basic human nature.

a reply to: xBWOMPx

You mean his manisfesto? Which calls for violent revolution... yea no. Not in today's world.

And what you explained was was what Marx had in mind. A positive utopia. Or at least a middle utopia involving multiple political / econimic ideolgies to lead to liberalism.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Then what is it? Your turn.

a reply to: Spider879

Cultural Marxism seeks to create social hierarchies based on color/gender/sexuality etc. and sort everybody into their own bin for electoral purposes. This is inevitably going to cause division.

Also, you are not judged based on your individuality, but by the group that you associate with. Group responsibility also means group punishment... which leads to the type of mass genocide we've seen under socialists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Hair splitting at best... be it a dog turd, a horse turd, or a bear turd, it's still socialism and, thus, it's sh_t.

a reply to: Konduit

Konduit, what I'm asking is, who created that term and used it as a label to define liberals or progressives.

]The rise of racial hatred is most certainly a threat to Australia's future security and prosperity, with the Jewish nation-wreckers continuously attempting to weaken and overwhelm the White residents of what was previously a semi-inhabited wilderness. The never-ending tidal wave of feral migrant hordes, combined with idiotic Cultural Marxism, runs the risk of utterly crushing a prosperous and beautiful land, and must be halted at any cost.

By observing the deranged reactions of the Jew to such a simple act of defiance, we come to the understanding that this kind of resistance must be increased exponentially. The World Parasite cannot stay quiet in the face of our propaganda exposure, and had the tendency to lose all composure when confronted with the truth.
rationalwiki.org...

All I'm saying is those of you who are conservatives are you comfortable with Nazi terminology being associated with your political out look, and I am saying this because there is an uptick in it's use quite recently.. Look I do believe we need conservative thought as a natural check on us Liberals as we would be the ones more likely to create a Nanny state, I also believed you guys need to have us in order to check your most extreme irrational inclinations..so that's why I'm respectfully warning you guys of that other guy's stuff or making you a were of where it came from, insidious as it is.

a reply to: Spider879

Cultural Marxism was first coined by the Frankfurt School in the 20th century. It's essentially communism grafted onto social issues. They've given up on the economic argument, for now, and seek to change nation states through manipulation of it's social structure.

a reply to: Konduit

You need to double check that, it wasn't coined by them,as it was used to describe them.

a reply to: Spider879

Sorry, it was first coined by Trent Schroyer in his 1973 book The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory.

Link

So, he's a nazi?

a reply to: Konduit

I don't know, but new Nazis took up his idea and made it their own.

a reply to: Spider879

You mean "new Nazis" like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens?

a reply to: Konduit

No I mean actual new Nazis like the ones posted in the article above, the Ben Shapiros and others just parrot the usage of the term.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Spider879

Sorry, it was first coined by Trent Schroyer in his 1973 book The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory.

Link

So, he's a nazi?

Hmmmmm....

Interesting term choice.

I wouldnt have pegged that as an extension of Marxism from a sort of 'systems analysis' position. Social hierarchies was a Nazi's found Eugenics and bought IBM punchcard computers thing.

Socialists / Communists Ive always pegged as being more about attacking hierarchies, hierarchies love them or hate them have been the 'natural order' in every civilization since the first ones we're able to paint a full picture of. Class based hierarchies being the universal constant in all recorded civilizations, Marx' vision was to eliminate them (or there abouts). Not that there isnt a aplenty of hypocrisy in that as an elite "vanguard" to command & control still is part of the inherent design. And not that Marx wasnt a bonafide racist (he was). But the social hierarchies was the Nazi contribution from about everything I've seen.

Where specific to 'Total Socialism' (Communism) [the enforcement of which inherently requires Authoritarianism, and when its a 'one party' situation coupled with that you get Totalitarianism], the method of fulfillment was to completely abolish all sense of national heritage & history (see my 'install new OS' analogy earlier in the thread), 'Cultural Revolution' they called it, the posture stands testament to the mandatory nature of Communism, where the only way to ensure it last is to engage in wholesale Revisionism of the entire national discourse.

This is where the hardcore censorship came into play, which Lenin first enacted along these lines. (SEE: CENSORSHIP: The Universal Language of Dictators)

The Nazi's famous for their book burnings actually only burned books written by Jewish intellectuals, and rival ideologies, as they were Totalitarianists too. They alternative was a direct appeal to their natural heritage, instead of trying to completely abolish it like the 'proper Socialists'. And this I argue is the only pure difference between the two.

Well that and the social hierarchies thing. To me from all my studies of history, social psychology, social movements and cultural evolution... Critical Race Theory would be an Nazi twist (of the social hierarchies [Hyper-Tribalist] sense) on the Communist Revisionist style push to wipe out the existing culture and reformat it with their new one.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Spider879

Ah of course, anyone who disagrees with the leftists is racist and antisemitic. Got it.

So what is cultural Marxism - enlighten us wise one.

“Cultural Marxism” isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a term used by some to refer to Neomarxism and Critical Theory, an ideology that most definitely exists and has most definitely become entrenched in almost every facet of the humanities and social sciences at Western universities as the dominant philosophy. Neither is the implementation of Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” a conspiracy theory. If you want to know what these things are, look them up, grab a book like Roger Scruton’s Fools, Frauds and Firebrands, or go straight to the horse’s mouth and read Gramsci, the Frankfurtians, Gyorgy Lukacz, Foucault, Habermas, Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek and all the other cranks for yourself. An example of this ideology is current “Intersectionality” and its raging against traditional culture and social structures of Western Christendom; it’s “cultural” Marxism because it supplants the narrow view of warfare of economic classes in which the proletariat will be victorious against the bourgeoisie and instead makes every straight, white, Christian male and everything they built the enemy, and unlike with Marx that includes your blue collar working class pleb.

a reply to: Spider879

Now you're splitting hairs.

So many of terms we're forced to use for discourse are created by far leftist ideological groups. Do you think we're comfortable with that? Do you spend all this time clutching your pearls if we aren't?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Language is what happens when a term creeps into the popular lexicon because enough people think the shoe fits. I get that in this case you don't like it, so now you're trying to shame people out of using it with Godwin's Law.

As can be seen here, once again, whatever specific meaning the phrase "cultural Marxism" might have once had, it has no longer.

At this point, certain ideologies merely heap everything they don't care for into "cultural Marxism" ... it is a boogie-monster, a shibboleth, a hand-puppet.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your observation is well-placed. Words and phrases do change meaning over time.

Spider is talking about the origins of the phrase "cultural Marxism" which are exactly what they demonstrated.

You were quite comfortable earlier with making the claim that the use of the phrase "The only thing we have to lose are our chains." suggests that certain movements are centered around Communism/Marxism, but you don't like it when it is demonstrated that the term you seem to be arguing for, "cultural Marxism" has it's origins in Nazi ideology.

I would say your argument isn't consistent with itself.

For example, I believe in the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That belief doesn't make me a Christian.

In other words, if you're not comfortable with overgeneralization, don't do it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

but you don't like it when it is demonstrated that the term you seem to be arguing for, "cultural Marxism" has it's origins in Nazi ideology.

More like Nazi Methodology.

Ideas about who whatever gets placed where in social hierarchies is what I'd peg as ideology.

Not unlike a behavioral analysis thing where Antifa march around like Brownshirt thugs but since they're anti Nazi ideology they are absolutely convinced they're NOTHING like them. Its a 'tiger cant change his stripes per se, but can change the color of them' sort of thing.