Is "Cultural Marxism" Real? - Actual phenomenon, or meaningless buzzword?

Is "Cultural Marxism" actually a thing?

  • Yes

  • No


Los resultados solo se pueden ver después de votar.
That's a term I haven't heard in a while, but at least what it was used to describe yes
 
It does, but the name is stupid.

Marx does provide many ideas for reshaping society, but absolute moral degeneracy from the underclass is not one of them and that's almost always what people are talking about when Cultural Marxism is being brought up. It also doesn't translate well into non American societies because while the left is responsible for things like gay marriage in the US it was actually centre right parties who brought it in places like the UK and Ireland. In fact in the UK especially it has tended to be the Tories who come around to and accommodate new lifestyles faster than the others; even if they previously disapproved of things like Women working, female politicians or gay stuff.

Wokism is a far better term because as you may have noticed States that identify as Marx influenced usually are quite averse to Cultural Marxism.
 
Buzzword, mostly. "Cultural Marxism" has little to do with Marx or Marxism. However, because pseudo-Marxist jargon is the lingua franca of academia and academia currently acts as the staging ground for left-extremism, a lot of extremist ideas get lumped in under that rubric.
 
Meaningless buzz word that obscures an actual malevolent force. There are actual marxists in the world that are actually evil, What the phrase cultural Marxism creates is an easy slur to throw at anybody that the right disagrees with and so it limits the ability for the right to actually make a point against Marxism.
 
The only consistent definition (or at least one that made sense) I've heard is that the concept of class warfare is applied to other aspects of human society, like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

This is what it meant to me. Marxism was all about the material, money and other tangible forms of wealth. "Cultural" Marxism extends the theory out to the non-tangible such as social status, privilege, etc. So when you see those white soys washing the feet of blacks at some George Floyd event, that's "cultural Marxism," in the sense that the oppressed blacks are re-distributing the white oppressors' unfairly taken social status away from the whites and rightfully taking it back for themselves (as they would see it).
 
It MIGHT have been something at some point, but like so many words, it's now just "Anything conservatives don't like".

After all, conservatives have informed me that fucking flat rate health care clinics are "Communist" so I ain't trusting them for SHIT on any vocabulary.
 
I think those on both ends of the political aisle have discredited the term.

Wikipedia took the term seriously at one point, but now it describes it as a conspiracy theory.

And like many on this thread have pointed out, it seems like it's devolved into "whatever conservatives don't like."
 
I think those on both ends of the political aisle have discredited the term.

Wikipedia took the term seriously at one point, but now it describes it as a conspiracy theory.

And like many on this thread have pointed out, it seems like it's devolved into "whatever conservatives don't like."
"Woke" is better, but even that one is getting watered down real fucking fast too. If there's one thing that I really hate modern society for killing, it's the English language.
 
Cultural Marxism is just a conservative term for the general way of thinking that comes out of the Frankfurt School and is equivalent to that retarded "woke" buzzword.

It is basically the Marxist ideology shifted away from class war and onto "identity politics," so we'll create pure equality through pitting homo against hetero, male against female, white against black, etc. Old Marxism had that but it wasn't the main course.
 
I think it's what some people want, but I don't necessarily think that some cabal is actively working as a gestalt towards this goal. Whether it will actually happen, hard to say. If it does, the move to do so is likely organic, rather than intentionally orchestrated.
 
The only consistent definition (or at least one that made sense) I've heard is that the concept of class warfare is applied to other aspects of human society, like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
I'll give you one better:
  • marxism - seizing the means of economic production resulting in dictatorship of the proletariat; strives to awake class consciousness
  • cultural marxism - seizing the means of cultural production (books, games, movies, news, laws, religion) resulting in dictatorship of anti-X (where X typically [but not always] stands for racists, thus giving anti-racists); strives to awake X consciousness (respectively to X given earlier)
As you have noted, X may have as well be replaced with sex/gender (including troonery), ableism and other isms.
 
It's obviously real, but it's not a conspiracy. Unless you would call Christianity "a conspiracy of the 12 apostles".
That saying, it seems like there are indeed two "layers" of it: The original ideas of the Frankfurt School philosophers were mostly a form of accelerationism. Creating a perpetually unhappy surrogate proletariat (a coalition of joggers, empty egg cartons, humanities students and sexual deviants) to wreck things and prepare for the glorious revolution. But most of the current supporters seem to mistake these policies for an extension of "classical" liberalism, not a tool to destroy it. It looks like the managerial class tried to coopt these ideas and poisoned itself in the process.
 
tl;dr: Not so much as a conspiracy, but more of a line of ideological influence which can be traced back to Marx.

Yes and no. Marx's writings, or what I remember of them, don't necessarily focused in developing a cogent plan for cultural elements for the conditions of communism or even as a criticisms of the capitalism of his time. He really was more focused on the economic/philosophic/historic conditions of the matter, but I'll leave that there as it is out of the topic. What I can believe is that the writers that were inspired by Marx's ideas like those of the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, Foucault, Said, Derrida, etc, etc. did write bodies of work that told those interested that culture and the elements which compose it are is as much of a battleground as anything else: Language, religion, traditions, forms of communication, entertainment, education, sexuality, and about anything else really, is a potential tool that is used or to be for purposes of instruction about ideology.

If you like semantics I think that "cultural Marxism" is misnamed but it is an easy buzzword for people whose knowledge of communism is Marx and Stalin, so it makes at least some sense that it is what is called.

That being said, the phenomenon itself I think is a bit of mix bag. The natural counterpoint of capitalism is communism and those of us who live in a capitalist country often hear any criticism towards it as nothing more than commie cultural Marxist propaganda. The US in general has been afraid of anything related to communism since at least the 1920's as it very much would fucking wreck the country (as it did most that adopted it), and the people are very much trained to react to anything with ties to Marx's ideas as communism. There are segments of the population that have just replaced Communism/Communism for Cultural Marxism/Marxist as it sounds more intellectual, but is often used as meaninglessly as the term was used through the Cold War to attack anybody left of Reagan.

That being said, again, the current of though in much of the Western world has shifted left. Partly as a backlash against the states of the "Right" which were blamed for WW1 and WW2, and partly because of the rise of mass forms entertainment and communications which allowed certain artistic and scientific tendencies to be disseminated faster and wider than ever before. Those "somewhat" niche writers that inspired mostly academics and fellow writers have in these past decades found their ideas gestate into enough influence within the idea spreading circles that they have turned into policies or the unofficial pillars to build change around.

As for myself, capitalism isn't great but it still the best. Yet that doesn't mean it can't stand some criticism and the natural ideological source of criticism will be from those more ideologically aligned Marx. However, it is not ideal breaking down the pillars of society without replacing them with something just as strong. Maybe the foundation of man and woman, or the priority of protecting human life are outdated and gay, but what is replacing these ideas are nothing but ill pipe dreams are going to blown away either by their natural culminations, or their inability to exist outside of the sheltered conditions that Western capitalism provides to its population.
 
Maybe the foundation of man and woman, or the priority of protecting human life are outdated and gay, but what is replacing these ideas are nothing but ill pipe dreams are going to blown away either by their natural culminations, or their inability to exist outside of the sheltered conditions that Western capitalism provides to its population.

Do not tear down fences until you have carefully considered the reasons why they were set up in the first place, and all of that.

You'd have to have a very deep-seated hatred or disdain for humanity if you think it was only because they were evil racist/sexist/homophobic poopyheads.
 
"Cultural Marxism" isn't real, not with that name, anyway, though it identifies a very visible set of values unique to developed capitalist societies.

If anyone can show me what's "Marxist" about cutting a kid's penis off or having buttsecks in public or racial quotas in movies or what have you, I'll fly to his home (provided I'm given the address) to suck his cock.
No, "They just replaced proletarians with freaks while keeping the same analysis" isn't going to cut it either, if only because it's wronger than wrong.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo