http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
^read all that and you'll understand what people mean when they refer to "cultural Marxism".
(Namely just another conspiracy by sinister International Jewry to further enslave the noble white race, etc)
Results 1 to 11 of 11
DAFAQ is this "Cultural Marxism"?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard this before. I don't even know what it is but according to the many interesting characters I meet over the internet it is some whack-job conspiracy. Is it a thing and are they just misunderstanding it? Or is it just one of their convenient labels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
^read all that and you'll understand what people mean when they refer to "cultural Marxism".
(Namely just another conspiracy by sinister International Jewry to further enslave the noble white race, etc)
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
This is the conspiracy theory specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfu...spiracy_theory
Here's the page for what cultural Marxism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Gramsci was a pretty cool dude, though his writings can get somewhat dense and hard to get through (specifically his prison diaries). He and the Franfurt school were some of the main influences on cultural Marxism.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
this will be a bit long so tl;dr ahead of time
"Cultrual Marxism" refers to a conspiracy that right-wingers indulge a lot in. The basic gist of it is that Marxists, having failed to "legitimately" win the support of the masses because capitalism is superior, have instead transitioned to brainwashing people through mass media and education. This basically takes the idea of "liberal hollywood", universities being liberal brainwashing stations, etc. up to 11 to say that this was infact an coordinated Marxist plot to subvert western societies by making their viewpoint dominant among the youth and impressionable masses.
This is basically conspiracy rambling that takes a nutty view of the positions espoused by the Frankfurt School and by extension Gramsci. Gramsci was an Italian Marxist who came to prominence during the interwar period and got imprisoned when the fascist regime consolidated power. While imprisoned Gramsci busied himself with political writings, which were pretty dense- both due to his attempts to keep censors at bay and since it was written in mind for someone already versed in Marxist theory rather than a casual reader.
Here, Gramsci became known for several concepts- the role of intellectuals in societies, state and civil society, hegemony, and what he believed Marxism embodied. It is in his discussions on hegemony where groups like the Frankfurt school got influenced. In a brief summary this was Gramsci's way of analyzing the relationship between "Base" and "Superstructure". These two terms predate Gramsci and in Marxist theory the former typically refers to the means of production, and the latter to the institutions that arise. Gramsci took a different interpretation of this, claiming that the superstructure could exert some independence from the base and in some instances reflect back on it in much the same way base could reflect on the superstructure. In Gramsci's conception it was a two-way process. This is mostly something he concludes from his study of Italian history, in particular the role of the Church in Italy and the difficulty the bourgeoisie had running their respective states and later the unified Kingdom despite essentially having made capitalism the order of the day.
Gramsci extends this to a discussion about what he referred to as the state and civil society. The former is a term we are familiar with, the instrument of class rule, the latter Gramsci used to refer to bodies that existed outside the state, things like unions. Using the metaphor of war, Gramsci compares overthrowing the state (and changing the base) to forward defenses, whereupon the attacker is then met with a hellish network of trenches to slow its progress. This he refers to the civil society, these influences which can act to try and reflect back on the fledgling state and upset if not reverse victory. This he attributes to the power of hegemony, the means by which the ruling class extend their ideas ("common sense") to protect the state. Taking notes from Machiavelli in a section referred to as "Modern Prince", Gramsci echoes that a ruler needs to be able to use both force and consent to justify their system.
Gramsci concludes that the party needs to form what has been called a "counter-hegemonic" block, a grouping of disadvantaged segments of society centered around the proletariat, which would counter the influences of the capitalist civil society by promoting their own ideas and values. Gramsci, in his war metaphors, referred to this process as the "War of Position", which he coupled with the physical act of revolution- "War of Manuever". This was his dialectical interpetation of the movement- they relied on one another and could not exist without the other.
It is his discussions on war on position and hegemony that promoted some future Marxists to analyze social institutions- media, education, unions, interest groups, religion- how they come about, their role in society, and so on. This was a departure from previous Marxists who generally focused more specifically on the economy or party organization. This birthed groups like the Frankfrut school- academics influenced by Marx, György Lukács, and to an extent Gramsci, as well as a host of psychologists and philosophers. These fellows employed a Marxist viewpoint when critiquing cultural works- literature, movies, art, film, etc. as well as social norms, and often used it as a way to emphasize the depictions class struggle across the ages (the engine of history, to paraphrase Marx), as well as ways bourgeois values were promoted.
The Frankfurt School were influential in their time and had their followers within the humanities and other Liberal Arts fields. Even if they were not necessarily supported by many of their counterparts, their method of analysis was an accepted means of critique.
In the 1980s, a wingnut named William Lind published a paper (or more accurately, a rant)- "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" wherein he "revealed" a massive effort by Marxists to subvert western socities through media and education which he termed "cultural marxism". He draws their line of descent from Gramsci, whom he described as a bitter, demonic individual that sought to succeed after the communist movement failed in Italy by creating this order to battle. A phrase that Lind used was "Long March through the Institutions", which he said summarized Gramsci's ideas of seizing control of the state from within.
Before I go further, I should point out that the quote Lind used which has since been repeated by others claiming this conspiracy, did not orginate from Gramsci. Ignoring the fact that Gramsci didn't even advocate this, the quote is never mentioned in Gramsci's works. Gramsci died in 1936, shortly after the "Long March" concluded- the quote infact comes from Rudi Dutchske. Dutchske was a German radical who was prominent in the student movement there in the 60s in its heyday, influenced by a myriad of views ranging from council communists, Rosa Luxemburg, Maoism, Frankfurt School, and finally Gramsci (which was in line with the "New Left" in general). Dutchske is the one who originated this quote, and the meaning of which is not exactly known. Was he advocating for his followers to take up positions within the state and education to change society from within? Was he urging them to persevere in their efforts to make a counter-hegemonic bloc? What ever the case was, it is sometimes accused the former by virtue of Dutschke's decision to join the then-young Green Party in Germany.
Shortly after Dutschke, a movement arose within the old Communist parties of the west which has since then been called "Eurocommunism". Eurocommunists, especially the ones in Italy (for obvious reasons), used Gramsci's work to justify their actions, particularly in a part where Gramsci stated that each country had unique conditions for a revolution. These parties slid into reformism and influenced a long line of people- even Gordon Brown was a part of this.
So, back to Lind. This is the time he wrote in, and he charged that all these things I described was proof of a concerted strategy to basically subvert and seize control of western societies from within. Lind said this had already occured within the United States, claiming that Hollywood and music was already compromised, that places of higher learning were filled to the brim with "cultural Marxists", that even schools were taken over, etc. The end result is basically what Lind observed that each successive generation of youth were becoming increasingly areligious, disdainful towards capitalism, libertine views towards drugs, alcohol, and sex, interracial relationships were increasing, etc. Lind saw this trend as not a generational change in attitudes, but the result of the Cultural Marxists succeeding in spreading values which were more complementary towards socialism and thus setting up the groundwork for the creation of a communist society.
It should be noted that Lind attributed the values he was trying to protect as being uniquely white and western, which he equated with civilization. So this conspiracy he concocted, apparently formulated by outsiders to destroy the country from within, was tantamount to a drive to utterly exterminate all traces of society. From that alone you can see how this would appeal to white supremacists and their idea of a "cultural" genocide.
For god knows what ever reason this became popular among conservatives trying to attribute a conspiracy to things they didn't like. Admittedly, it shares a lot in common with other conspiracies- secretive, typically well-educated cabal of elites trying to reshape the world in their image. I guess it helps too for conspiracy nutters that founders of the Frankfurt School were Jewish too. It's not the first time either that there was fears of communist infiltration either- "red scares", McCarthyism, etc. are different manifestations of this.
Political correctness? Marxist plot to control our thinking. Education? Taken over by Marxists to brainwash our youth (they think they whole field of pedagogy is in fact a Marxist plot). "Liberal" Hollywood? Not merely elitist liberals, but part of a larger conspiracy! Welfare? Getting people dependent on the government so socialism can come about easier. Multiculturalism? Marxist plot to push internationalism. Feminism? Marxist plot to destroy capitalism. Emphasis on group work? Marxist plot to get us ready for collectivization. Large corporations? In fact, Marxist! This goes on ad nauseum.
Depending on the nutter you speak too, the end result of this is either A. To crash a country's economy to create a new state or B. To form a new state by gradual steps.
For obvious reasons this went downhill when the Soviet Union collapsed and Communism no longer was as strong a spectre as it was once to Americans. Wingnut conspiracies came back with Clinton and this reared its head briefly, and it really came back in an ugly way with Obama, especially when they found out he had some intersection with Bill Ayers. As a reminder, Ayers is a University of Chicago professor who was a member of the Weathermen. So we have this old new left radical in academia that resulted in a president? You can see how this is fertile for cultural marxism hysterics.
Even if it's not implicitly said, I should point out that accusations of Obama intentionally crashing the economy, benefiting from liberal domination of media and education, having disdain towards corporations, saying that he secretly loathes and despises American values, that is frequently lobbed at him by wingnuts owes itself to cultural marxism hysteria among the talking heads. The Tea Party really eats this shit up too (on a side note, for all Santorum's accusations of Obama being a closeted radical, the branch of the Santorum family in Italy were long-time members of the Italian Communist Party).
Likewise in Europe this has manifested itself in the right-wing, nativist populist parties who have a fixation on immigration and multiculturalism. These clowns will accuse that the soft social-democrats of their respective countries are actually filled to the brim with ex-communists (which is inspired from a combination of members of communist parties either founding or joining a social-democratic party after the 80s, and some entryist tactics). This goes on and on, and manifested itself in Brevik's bombings and shooting massacre in Norway. I remember discussing Brevik's manifesto on these forums some time ago. While a lot of attention was directed towards Brevik's Templar fetishism and rage against immigrants in the media, those of us here noted his frequent references to "cultural marxists".
In fact, Brevik's tirade on cultural marxists largely plagiarized Lind's original rant from the 80s, with usually only the additions of Muslims being part of their attempt to subvert and destroy western values. Brevik was pretty clear on his disdain about these "cultural marxists", who he said had filled up the ranks of politicians and academics. In his mind the communists had achieved control over Norway's Labor Party as they have over all of Europe's left and are beginning to subvert Europe's society from within. It's been speculated that his selection of the youth camp may've also been to find former Labor Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. She had been on Utoya for the youth camp and had left only hours before Brevik arrived. In his manifesto/rants/plans Brevik indicated he wanted to "arrest" Brundtland and put her on trial for betraying Norway, after which he would execute her- all this being recorded. Brevik had apparently concluded that this "Cultural Marxist" cancer originated from this one individual as far as Norway was concerned.
Last edited by Red Commissar; 1st September 2013 at 06:25. Reason: Mixed up my British PMs...
33_PERCENT_GOD, argeiphontes, blake 3:17, Brutus, Chaos316, Comrade Dracula, Comrade Jacob, Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages, Fakeblock, Goblin, NGNM85, Petrol Bomb, Polaris, Popular Front of Judea, Revoltorb, Sasha, Sinister Cultural Marxist, slum, Taters, The Garbage Disposal Unit, Vladimir Innit Lenin, Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist, Zukunftsmusik
^ re: Breivik's anti-marxism: This has been very much hushed down in the media. When Breivik arrived at Utøya he claimed he was from the "Norwegian Anti-Marxist Resistance" (a one-member resistance, of course), but the media presented this as simply "the Norwegian Resistance". But that's a side note.
I guess this isn't surprising, but I've seen this cultural Marxism crap coming from ancaps and the like, too. They've never mentioned Lind or cultural Marxism by name, but many of the ones I've met on the internet have echoed what Red Commissar outlined above.
"What is necessary is to go beyond any false opposition of programme versus spontaneity. Communism is both the self-activity of the proletariat and the rigorous theoretical critique that expresses and anticipates it."
-----
"...Stalinism is eternally condemned to govern capital, and the ideological dynamics of Stalinism are tied to this peculiar type of capital management; it is locked within this framework, reproducing the logic of capitalism under the veil of communism. For this reason, Stalinism, and its various derivatives, cannot accurately be regarded as communist if we choose to define it in materialist terms." - Tim Cornelis
Sadly, this rightist garbage seems to have gone mainstream as a way to dismiss anything seen as "political correctness".
You're probably a cultural Marxist if you have a sense of humor and realize theres more to life than being stuck-up and over-disciplined.
Interestingly, I feel like there is a real tension that emerges around this question. The thing is liberals and the "soft left" (wayward liberals partial to paying occasional homage to post-/marxist thought) really are guilty of a type of "political correctness" that serves to obscure the contradictions in capitalism, by de facto preventing any sincere discussion of racism, misogyny, etc. Within this framework, a white critic of Obama, or Al Sharpton, or black "community leaders" becomes racist irregardless of the content of their critique, relationships to black communities, etc.: the problem being that it obscures the much more insidious operation of white supremacy that is part and parcel of the everyday functioning on capitalism.
As long as liberals, the university crowd, etc. remain more-or-less hegemonic in terms of articulating (pseudo-)critiques of capitalism, the rightwing populist appeal of denouncing "political correctness" will continue to resonate with people.
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
Why is it even called "Marxism"?
Marx didn't even come up with it.
I could understand if it was hyphanated like Marxism-Leninism is.
I have honestly only heard this term from people who share EDL articles on facebook, so obviously I've personally paid little attention to it. From the look of it it seems to be a label they slap on people who can't be satisfactorily labelled as foreigners, homosexuals or women.
Like the Civil Rights leaders who helped the sub prime mortgage disaster. It was 'racist' not to let people go into debts they could never pay off.
And when I come across anything about PC, all I can think is Gary Kinsman telling us to read Dorothy Smith --- bad flashbacks.
