• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Bod

Does Cultural Marxism exist?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I thought Cultural Marxism was a deliberate, new way to divide and conquer: rather than split proletariat from bourgeoisie, it splits oppressor from oppressed. But Wikipedia has it in its list of conspiracy theories, and claims this again in the Cultural Marxism article. If I believe Cultural Marxsim exists, I am thick and credulous, my opinion is of no value, and people need not listen to me. Do I need to be sent for re-education? 

Edited by Bod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you do.

 

It doesn't exist.  The fact that all the things that people say was part of the declared aims of the cultural marxists (destruction of the family, identity politics, destruction of a national identity, criticism of western culture and music and elevation of all things non western, celebration of non-beauty, celebration of identity politics if the identity groups can further fracture society) have been achieved or are progressing well, and that any criticism of them can lead to a loss of employement and/or freedom, IS COMPLETE CO_INCIDENCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bod said:

I thought Cultural Marxism was a deliberate, new way to divide and conquer: rather than split proletariat from bourgeoisie, it splits oppressor from oppressed. But Wikipedia has it in its list of conspiracy theories, and claims this again in the Cultural Marxism article. If I believe Cultural Marxsim exists, I am thick and credulous, my opinion is of no value, and people need not listen to me. Do I need to be sent for re-education? 

Conspiracy theories aren't always false though, they are just unproven. Unfortunately Wikipedia's only permitted sources for things like this are left-wing newspapers and professors so it's unlikely to be moved out of the conspiracy theory box anytime soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JackieO said:

Cultural Marxism is old I mean 1930s old

Cultural Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, and The Frankfurt School

Ironically the rise of Hitler caused these cockroaches to spread West in general and to America in particular.

As for the term conspiracy theory, it was coined by the CIA to keep people from truths the CIA did not want revealing.

More holes in that than Swiss cheese Jackie.  Just to take the section on Gramsci, the article argues that the concept he worked with was cultural hegemony.   No, hegemony is concerned with ideology.  Culture comes in whereby the ruling elite subsume some of the culture of the oppressed so as to make them seem ‘more’ like us and on ‘our’ side.  An example is the way that Prince Harry’s life as been shaped. Squaddie with the troops and marrying a mixed race american. When in reality, he is nothing at all like us. It gives them credibility and allows them to gently and softly get their way.  

It is not though cultural marxism  in fact, I’m at a loss to understand what the term actually means  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As far as I can see the ideas described as cultural Marxism do not originate from (Karl) Marx.

From the link https://voegelinview.com/cultural-marxism-antonio-gramsci-frankfort-school/

Quote

This is why Marxism involves a program of negation, whereby theorists negate the work of previous Marxists as being incomplete.

which suggests that it may have little to do with Marx's original theories, rather, they are a corrupted or bastardised interpretation of them.

Rather like the way Darwin's theories of natural selection were appropriated to justify capitalism and Nazism.

Perhaps it has more to do with Feuerbach.

Edited by Happy Renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

As far as I can see the ideas described as cultural Marxism do not originate from (Karl) Marx.

Despite his radical political views Marx was essentially a classical economist and a believer in historical materialism . He saw history as a class not a cultural struggle. He believed the base processes of the political economy generated the cultural superstructure not the other way round.  Culture may be used to justify  inequality or the rule of elites but it does not create them. Therefore 'Cultural Marxists' are not true Marxists. 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, One percent said:

More holes in that than Swiss cheese Jackie.

Sorry I was herding cats when I posted that link....

Here's something more concise

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

the ideas described as cultural Marxism do not originate from (Karl) Marx.

They don't some of Marx followers evolved to take down the countries of the West when the class struggle failed to work and they pivoted to Oppressor V Oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JackieO said:

They don't some of Marx followers evolved to take down the countries of the West when the class struggle failed to work and they pivoted to Oppressor V Oppressed.

I’m with renty on this, I think it’s somet dreamt up by the establishment. Divide and rule, project their own actions onto the enemy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

I’m with renty on this, I think it’s somet dreamt up by the establishment. Divide and rule, project their own actions onto the enemy 

Watch this...

The first 8 minutes are a hook to the rest

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, JackieO said:

They don't some of Marx followers evolved to take down the countries of the West when the class struggle failed to work and they pivoted to Oppressor V Oppressed.

Maybe some did but in then in the process they essentially abandoned the central tenets of Marxism. Calling yourself a Marxist does not mean you are one. The idea of oppressors and the oppressed predates Marx by millennia. Anyway the theory that having a woman or a black person as Doctor Who or supporting multi culturalism is somehow going to change the fundamental economic relationships in society is just plain stupid. It is so laughable that big multinational corporations and political are happy to adopt it for their own ourposes. Why else would a billionaire by George Soros fund things like Antifa. What gives capitalist in the west sleepless nights is the thought their money will be taken away from them which is why they feared the old Soviet Union since that is what happened there.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They want you DIVIDED.
DIVIDED by RACE.
DIVIDED by RELIGION.
DIVIDED by CULTURE.
DIVIDED by CLASS.
DIVIDED by POLITICAL AFFILIATION.
DIVIDED YOU ARE WEAK.
TOGETHER YOU ARE STRONG.

This movement challenges their ‘forced’ narrative.
This movement challenges people to not simply trust what is being reported.
Research for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Trust yourself.
This movement is not about one person or a group of people.
WE, the PEOPLE.
Save the Republic!
Hatred and Dissension in the Nation will Heal.
WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL.
Q

As Breitbart said the fruits of cultural marxism/the frankfurt school/whatever the fuck you want to call it,  was the division and the fracturing of Western Society down a myriad of lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JackieO said:

As Breitbart said the fruits of cultural marxism/the frankfurt school/whatever the fuck you want to call it,  was the division and the fracturing of Western Society down a myriad of lines.

 

Well if you are a member of an elite group with financial  interests across the globe then is that not precisely you would want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Well if you are a member of an elite group with financial  interests across the globe then is that not precisely you would want

Globalist financial elites are not affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2018 at 18:02, Virgil Caine said:

Maybe some did but in then in the process they essentially abandoned the central tenets of Marxism. Calling yourself a Marxist does not mean you are one. The idea of oppressors and the oppressed predates Marx by millennia. Anyway the theory that having a woman or a black person as Doctor Who or supporting multi culturalism is somehow going to change the fundamental economic relationships in society is just plain stupid. It is so laughable that big multinational corporations and political are happy to adopt it for their own ourposes. Why else would a billionaire by George Soros fund things like Antifa. What gives capitalist in the west sleepless nights is the thought their money will be taken away from them which is why they feared the old Soviet Union since that is what happened there.

Marx was right about one thing - capitalism will fail. Eventually it eats itself. I think we are probably living through an accelerated end to capitalism right now, going into a post-capitalist world. What he was wrong about was the inevitable communist outcome.

Cultural Marxism is a useful tool to distract the masses by pointing fingers at each other while the 'elites' figure out how to keep their positions/wealth intact in the new paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, maynardgravy said:

Marx was right about one thing - capitalism will fail. Eventually it eats itself. I think we are probably living through an accelerated end to capitalism right now, going into a post-capitalist world. What he was wrong about was the inevitable communist outcome.

Cultural Marxism is a useful tool to distract the masses by pointing fingers at each other while the 'elites' figure out how to keep their positions/wealth intact in the new paradigm.

Lenin wanted to prove that. He put a top economist, Nicolai Kondratiev, in charge of obtaining that proof. 

Kondratiev did prove that capitalism will always fail. However, rather than eat itself, he showed that it rises again like a Phoenix from its own ashes. According to Kondratiev, the economic cycle has 4 seasons. The K winter is, obviously, when it all goes to shit. Often resulting in a big war or revolution. Then the wide boys start the whole capitalism process again. Rinse and repeat.

Lenin was not amused and Kondratiev paid a heavy price for telling it as he saw it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

One thing that might have amused Marx is the current ability of individuals to control production. Not so much the means of production but what is actually produced. With just a laptop and the relevant software, any of us, skill permitting, can create CAD files for our new gizmo. Get a quote from say China, pay them some money and await delivery. It is even at the stage where a 3rd party site will match up those wanting onesie twosie parts and those with spare capacity for their 3D printers and cnc machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jm51 said:

Kondratiev did prove that capitalism will always fail. However, rather than eat itself, he showed that it rises again like a Phoenix from its own ashes. According to Kondratiev, the economic cycle has 4 seasons. The K winter is, obviously, when it all goes to shit. Often resulting in a big war or revolution. Then the wide boys start the whole capitalism process again. Rinse and repeat.

Lenin was not amused and Kondratiev paid a heavy price for telling it as he saw it.

Not quite sure why Lenin wasn't 'amused' by this as 'often resulting in a big war or revolution' where millions (billions now) of lives are at risk is not a glowing endorsement of capitalism - unless it was the going against the assumption that communism naturally arises from those ashes, which is of course not true.

But any system can reestablish itself once everything is completely destroyed. It's why our glorious military-industrial complex exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenin wanted proof that capitalism would become as dead as a Dodo. Plenty of countries have had their capitalism turn to dust and then rebuilt another capitalist society. History is a bit light on countries where their communism regime collapsed and that country then became communist again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maynard and JM, consider this.

There is no economic blue print, nobody knows what the future is going to be, and nobody can know what the best use of scarce resources is (contrary to Rousseau's conjecture, in nature everything around us exists in a state of scarcity, apart from air perhaps).

All of our economic decisions are a giant, ongoing, experiment, with an uncertain outcome, that we all do our best to mitigate and adjust for.

It is also important to accept that with every decision everyone of us make, there is an unseen "opportunity cost" associated with it, that is to say, had we done something else, would there have been a better outcome, or better use of our time and resources?

Now consider that we have a political choice between:

A) Government that forcibly makes decisions on our behalf, for all of our time and resources (be it fascist, socialist, or feudalistic, or whatever)

B) Government that allows people to make their own voluntary economics choices within a narrow framework of rules.

Now consider that under system A, a few people who sit at the very top of the social hierarchy are going to be responsible for almost all of the economic decisions, and that under system B, that decision making burden will split across the entire population.

Further consider, System A is based on the idea that those at the top of the social hierarchy can enforce their choices on those below them.

Under system A therefore, we have a small number of people, moving and organising huge amounts of resources (from a historical perspective, usually according to a complicated economic plan), with little understanding of the specialist knowledge required in many economics processes (for example specialist engineering knowledge), and which those affected are in no position to really change should the outcome be unsuitable, or even harmful.

Under system B, everyone makes their own smaller economic decisions, based on their own knowledge of their own lives and vocation.

Under System B, people can make many small economic mistakes, but can quickly take action to rectify them.

Under System A, a few people are making all of the major economic decisions, and can make huge economic mistakes, that affect many millions of people, and that are difficult to change.

In terms of "Opportunity Cost" therefore:-

System A, small numbers of people, make big decisions, with huge opportunity costs, which are slowly adapted to, if at all.

System B, many people, make lots of smaller decisions, each with a small opportunity cost, which are quickly adapted to if required.

Now consider history, and look at the economic plans of countries with an economic and political system, similar to that described in System A.

Take for example Mao's great leap forward, Stalin's farm collectivisation, Hitler's tenure as German Chancellor, Robert Mugabe's rule, or Chavez's bolivarian revolution.

In all cases we have a small elite, making all of the economic decisions, according to a specific plan, that have gone badly wrong, which they continued to follow regardless of the hardship caused, or objections by those affected (objections were often met with threats and/or violence). These economies were destroyed by a small number of decisions causing huge opportunity costs.

In a system of freedom in economic decision for all, there are still mistakes made all of the time, it's just that these mistakes are much smaller, can be dealt with much more quickly, because the actions are voluntarily made, not forcefully, and finally, whilst some are making mistakes there will many making much better decisions.

I have just considered opportunity cost, but division of labour, and the pareto principal (square root of all the workers produces half the output) also play a large part in our economic outcomes too, and of which authoritarian systems of economics struggle to mitigate.

Edited by SuperTramp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you defeat an enemy that has a long term track record of being very good at fighting?

One answer would be to remove whatever it is that makes them good at fighting. Destroy family values and whatever else makes a populace proud of their society and then why the fuck would they want to defend it against others?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.