Cultural Marxism

[Dave62]

Owing to the handful of questions and requests for information about the nature of “Cultural Marxism” from friends in social media, I will attempt to give a simple explanation of the topic. Please understand that the more simple an explanation I give, the more of the complexities will be left out. Thus it becomes something of a balancing act to try to do the subject justice.

I would have gladly just posted a Youtube link but it is very difficult to find a clip that is simultaneously short enough and mostly free from bias. Let me also declare my own bias at the outset. I despise Cultural Marxism as much as I despise the so called Alt-Right movement. I will give an opinion at the end for those who can be bothered to read all the way through this.

Lastly, this little essay presupposes a rudimentary understanding of Marxism. Try to stay with me, you might even find this interesting, so here goes.

It had become obvious to Marxian scholars that classical Marxism had completely failed by the 1920's. The workers of the world had not united, and had marched off to the First World War united by their various national banners. Only in Russia had the revolution succeeded in some form. Under Lenin and later Stalin, the workers' revolution had not turned into a utopia but had morphed into the killing fields of the Red Terror, civil war, and mass deportation to the gulags. It had certainly not spread to the rest of Europe.

During the interwar years, Marxists intellectuals regrouped and had a think about what went wrong. Antonio Gramsci declared that the workers' revolution did not work because those who controlled society held power through a phenomenon he labelled “cultural hegemony”. Hegemony means the ability to control others to the maximum extend with a minimum recourse to violence. Cultural Hegemony in Gramsci's view was the ability of the state, the corporate sector, the education sector, the media, and the Church to control the conditions of the workers' lives.

Gramsci suggested that the Communist revolution they hoped for would not occur until there was a “long march through the institutions” that would overthrow the foundations of western society and then replace capitalism with communism. Gramsci's ideas were taken up by a group of intellectuals based in Frankfurt Germany. This became known as the “Frankfurt School”, not to be confused with the production of hotdogs in the same city.

With the rise of the Nazis in 1933, these people fled Germany to the USA where they continued working on their theories. They developed the sociological approach know as “Critical Theory”. Critical theory holds that everything must be questioned and critiqued. It views society not in terms of the old Marxist dialectic of worker versus factory owner, but in a new binary of oppressed versus oppressor.

This new dialectic was read as relationships between White/Coloured people, Imperial/colonial, male/female, cis-gendered/trans-gendered, Christian/Other, and heterosexual/homosexual. In short critical theory became a modern day movement of iconoclasm that attacks any institution or tradition. Once sufficiently weakened western civilisation and its foundations in Greco-Roman law and Judeo-Christian belief systems will be replaced with the new socialist utopia.

Thus we see that cultural-Marxism with its critical theory is inclined to attack such icons as Church, School, marriage and family, capitalism, gender, and ever language. It seeks to empower those marginalised groups such as women, people of colour, the indigenous of former colonies, Muslims, homosexuals, transgendered, and any other group on the fringes that identify as marginalised.

So, having written all of that, I hope that my dear readers have a clearer view of the issue at hand. For those of you are so interested I now convert to opinion mode.
Socialism has never and probably will never work in the real world. In terms of body count alone it has been responsible for more direct and indirect murder than anything the Nazis ever did. There are those who naively and blindly still see the USSR as some kind of ideal or dream. Nostalgia is one thing but blind acceptance of this dead ideology is almost complicity in its murder.

Communism and Nazism are joined at the hip. Nazism commits mass murder based on race; Communism commits mass murder based on class; unless you happen to be Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish, Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian. Their modus operandi is identical. To them the end always justifies the means, and the state is always superior to the individual.

OK, I've got the historical stuff out of the way. Capitalism works. I'm sorry, but I had to say it. There has never been an economic system that has provided more wealth, material progress, and health care than capitalism. I don't like capitalism because it does leave some marginalised people behind, but when bashed around from the inside, and when people jump up and down and make a lot of noise, capitalism works even better. I see no need to destroy this system and replace it with something worse.

Judeo-Christianity is enlightening for the individual. You won't like this statement either but it is true. It is the most liberating philosophy with its emphasis on the individual and his or her divine origin and purpose. Case in point, Moses was quite radical for his day for outlawing slavery, and limiting indentured servitude to a maximum of 6 years. Christianity gave the impetus for the abolition of slavery from the British Empire back in the 1830's. I see no need to destroy this heritage and replace it with whatever you like, unless, of course, you have some weird Harvey Weinstein admiration complex.

And lastly, Western Civilisation. Art, music, architecture, philosophy, literature; which of these cultural icons would the cultural Marxists want to smash first?

Cultural-Marxism will not deliver any power to marginalised people though its minority grievance politics. It will hold up any group, be it indigenous issues, homosexuality, transgendeism, Islam as a token issue or as a “mascot”. The trouble is that to the Marxists its all about power and these groups are merely means to an end. If you don't believe that Marxists want power then you either haven't read enough or you are profoundly naive.

Marxism has always been cannibalistic; after they have had their way with any particular minority group they will eat it up and move on to the next issue; there is no end point for these people.

Sorry about the length of this post. I could not really condense it any more without either trivialising the topic or not putting forth some decent argument at the end. I hope you got something out of it. And lastly, please don't accuse me of being Right winged; it is quite possible to stand up to bullies on both sides of the so called political spectrum without being labelled.

[Silver]

Marxism has always been cannibalistic; after they have had their way with any particular minority group they will eat it up and move on to the next issue; there is no end point for these people.

Awesome. Powerful. Right on target. Great job.

I've reduced your post to just the single sentence above solely for the purpose of commenting that Marxists act out their horrific behavior because of who leads them.

Alma 30
60 And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell.

2 Nephi 26
22 And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

I fear that too many Americans believe that Marxism (Luciferism) is a problem that's "over there." That it only afflicts Europe or Asia. That particular political heresy is obviously found among all people and that's why wise men were raised up and inspired by God Himself to give us the US Constitution which is designed to limit the power given to people in political positions. Liberty or Homeland Security, which do we, as a people, want? Simple as that.