What actually is a 'cultural Marxist'?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mpagtches
Think it's someone who culturally follows Marx ... summut like that ...
Genius of the month award goes to u.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Mister Morality
Not quite. They would equally be members of that society, but they would not be equals in any other way.
Yeah they would still be an equal member of society, I don't understand they wouldn't be equal in what other ways?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
No idea really. It always feels like they are one step away from blaming the Jews or something.
Seems like a bogey man that doesn't exist.
Seems like a bogey man that doesn't exist.
Just because you know nothing about it doesn't mean that it didn't or doesn't exist. The Frankfurt School did exist. Gramsci, Adorno, Habermas, Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc. did actually exist and were part of the kulturmarxist school. Although I suppose Gramsci was more of a heavy influence on the kulturmarxists but a little too early to be one.
Some were Jewish (Marcuse and Horkheimer for example) but some weren't. The outright Neo-Nazi types would be surprised if they actually examined the backgrounds of the original kulturmarxists. For example many of them would probably call Adorno Jewish when he actually wasn't.
Original post by Mister Morality
You can be selfish and hedonistic- there are no laws against it. It is socially frowned upon and seen as unproductive and, typically, a waste of money or even to the detriment of your family. Large, tight-knit families generate social capital, understanding and compassion amongst people from all economic backgrounds and persuasions. Policies, laws and regulations that hinder the traditional family (Cultural Marxism) also hinder social capital...
You can have social capital without closely knit families. I am part of several communities with no family connecting between members. For example, in my free time I go out and volunteer for a local charity. None of us are related to eachother though our cooperation achieves great ends. We are perfectly capable of understanding eachother and feeling compassion. We do not need family.
Smoking weed and having sex (of any kind) can be detrimental to both the individual and society if done in excess and in unsafe ways. People should be discouraged from, say, drinking in excess but I do not think you should be discouraged from drinking moderately.
I do not understand your last comment. How do I want a less free society? Roughly speaking, I would like to live in a society that lets people do what they like so long as it doesn't negatively impact another person. You are suggesting that we should confine, or at least encourage, people to live in traditional ways and to not exerise their current ability of choosing what they want to do with their life.
Also, HigherMinion is that you?
Original post by Slaw92
Yeah they would still be an equal member of society, I don't understand they wouldn't be equal in what other ways?
I want you to understand the distinction between "equal member of society" and "equally a member of society", because there is a world of difference. Many people seem to make this mistake with "equality".
An audio engineer; an immigrant factory cleaner and a judge, all living in Cambridge, are equally citizens in Cambridge, this is a fact. However, they are not equal in that society, you can't say audio engineer=judge, because they are different and must be treated differently. There are so many nuanced factors that go in to why we treat different roles and people differently, but the Cultural Marxist/Trotskyite doctrine attempts to simplify everything because marketing has shown: people are stupid.
Original post by SHallowvale
You can have social capital without closely knit families. I am part of several communities with no family connecting between members. For example, in my free time I go out and volunteer for a local charity. None of us are related to eachother though our cooperation achieves great ends. We are perfectly capable of understanding eachother and feeling compassion. We do not need family.Smoking weed and having sex (of any kind) can be detrimental to both the individual and society if done in excess and in unsafe ways. People should be discouraged from, say, drinking in excess but I do not think you should be discouraged from drinking moderately.I do not understand your last comment. How do I want a less free society? Roughly speaking, I would like to live in a society that lets people do what they like so long as it doesn't negatively impact another person. You are suggesting that we should confine, or at least encourage, people to live in traditional ways and to not exerise their current ability of choosing what they want to do with their life.Also, HigherMinion is that you?
It's not about having family members inside those other communities, but about learning to develop those key social skills from a young age. Why do you think there has been a massive increase in diagnoses for social anxiety, depression and other social disorders? Sociopathy is also on the rise. Now, you could suggest this is because of stricter diagnostics and less stigma to be treated, etc. but that's conjecture. What we know is there has been an increase. Learning to share, care and be kind is learned in the home, and you spread these values wherever you go. It's part of the socialising process.
I agree, all things in moderation is fine. Currently, do you believe those things are being encouraged to be practiced in moderation or as much as possible? Clubbing, binge culture, rock and roll's promotion of drugs and this hook up culture tied to clubbing and even apps. Is this the moderation you're talking about?
It is a less free society because whenever you see "inequality", you make it your duty to make the government reach further than it must. Every time the government takes over a role of society from the people, we move further towards tyranny. We must be left to make our own decisions, to fail and succeed. I like a welfare safety net, but what we have now is gargantuan and needs a #2 trim on the sides, short on top.
I checked out this HigherMinion guy you mentioned- no I am not him sadly, but I like the cut of his jib. Shame he doesn't post any more. Looks like he was banned and vanned.
(edited 8 years ago)
No I still don't understand. Are you saying that if I meet two people and one happens to be a judge and the other a janitor that I have to treat the judge differently, as in suck up to him, just because he is a judge? I don't see job titles, if I like you I like you, if I don't I don't, job titles don't come it to it, it's an equal way of judgement.
I agree that this is the case just now, people are automatically judged on job titles, appearances etc. I don't feel that should be the way, if your an idiot your still an idiot no matter what you do. If history has taught us anything it's this.
I am interested in how you would treat a judge and a janitor? What would be the differences you feel one must apply when meeting someone in these professions?
I agree that this is the case just now, people are automatically judged on job titles, appearances etc. I don't feel that should be the way, if your an idiot your still an idiot no matter what you do. If history has taught us anything it's this.
I am interested in how you would treat a judge and a janitor? What would be the differences you feel one must apply when meeting someone in these professions?
Original post by Slaw92
No I still don't understand. Are you saying that if I meet two people and one happens to be a judge and the other a janitor that I have to treat the judge differently, as in suck up to him, just because he is a judge? I don't see job titles, if I like you I like you, if I don't I don't, job titles don't come it to it, it's an equal way of judgement.
I agree that this is the case just now, people are automatically judged on job titles, appearances etc. I don't feel that should be the way, if your an idiot your still an idiot no matter what you do. If history has taught us anything it's this.
I am interested in how you would treat a judge and a janitor? What would be the differences you feel one must apply when meeting someone in these professions?
I agree that this is the case just now, people are automatically judged on job titles, appearances etc. I don't feel that should be the way, if your an idiot your still an idiot no matter what you do. If history has taught us anything it's this.
I am interested in how you would treat a judge and a janitor? What would be the differences you feel one must apply when meeting someone in these professions?
Those were examples of importance and class. Do you think a judge will act in the same way, typically, to a cleaner? You will automatically judge the behaviour and attitudes of different people. Once again, they are not the same. By all means, have the same laws affecting them both, but socially they will be treated differently. If one of them gambles, smokes or drinks heavily and the other does not, they will once again receive a different perception from others. Nobody is equal to anybody else.
There's probably been about 7 people in history, out the millions who have used the term "cultural Marxism" who wasn't a racist. I'm not necessarily saying to express these views is racist in itself, but it's just one of those where most people who use the term are racists.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
Original post by KimKallstrom
There's probably been about 7 people in history, out the millions who have used the term "cultural Marxism" who wasn't a racist. I'm not necessarily saying to express these views is racist in itself, but it's just one of those where most people who use the term are racists.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
PRSOM
Some interesting points
I agree, all things in moderation is fine. Currently, do you believe those things are being encouraged to be practiced in moderation or as much as possible? Clubbing, binge culture, rock and roll's promotion of drugs and this hook up culture tied to clubbing and even apps. Is this the moderation you're talking about?
I was pondering this today- I recently flicked on a music channel and most of the videos were semi pornographic and this was at 2pm.
The root of the problem is essentially human nature in that we are essentially selfish creatures, and when I say selfish I mean we all have our unique experiences and are essentially driven by forces outside of our control (e.g we didn't freely choose our origin or our genetics).
However to give in to this essential truth is essentially against human nature that's why we create free will to give us s purpose other than existing- thus the libertarian (as I saw it) argument you made is both wrong and right. Whilst we are not free and probably never will be we do have the capacity to learn and experience. This the negation of human individual agency is in essence correct it also destroys the very fabric of our humanity.
I
Original post by Mister Morality
I agree, all things in moderation is fine. Currently, do you believe those things are being encouraged to be practiced in moderation or as much as possible? Clubbing, binge culture, rock and roll's promotion of drugs and this hook up culture tied to clubbing and even apps. Is this the moderation you're talking about?
I was pondering this today- I recently flicked on a music channel and most of the videos were semi pornographic and this was at 2pm.
The root of the problem is essentially human nature in that we are essentially selfish creatures, and when I say selfish I mean we all have our unique experiences and are essentially driven by forces outside of our control (e.g we didn't freely choose our origin or our genetics).
However to give in to this essential truth is essentially against human nature that's why we create free will to give us s purpose other than existing- thus the libertarian (as I saw it) argument you made is both wrong and right. Whilst we are not free and probably never will be we do have the capacity to learn and experience. This the negation of human individual agency is in essence correct it also destroys the very fabric of our humanity.
I
Original post by Mister Morality
Those were examples of importance and class. Do you think a judge will act in the same way, typically, to a cleaner? You will automatically judge the behaviour and attitudes of different people. Once again, they are not the same. By all means, have the same laws affecting them both, but socially they will be treated differently. If one of them gambles, smokes or drinks heavily and the other does not, they will once again receive a different perception from others. Nobody is equal to anybody else.
Like I have said, I agree with you that that is the case now, I don't know why you seem to be trying to convince me of this? I know this happens now and that is what I don't like. I am saying it shouldn't be the case, you take people for who they are as a person and not their job title or illnesses they may have. If they are nice then they are nice regardless of being a judge or a cleaner. I will see them both equally and judge them emotionally after getting to know them, job titles and illnesses don't come into it. If I don't like this person after a conversation I will still see them as an equal member to society like myself.
Original post by Slaw92
I will still see them as an equal member to society like myself.
You need to explain what you mean by "equal member of society". Do you mean that you will consider that they offer the same amount to society? That they act in an equally positive manner? That all people want the same things? Explain what "equal member" means.
Well, there's the real thing and there's the right-wing conspiracy theory.
In reality, it's a school of social theory and philosophy, which believed that orthodox Marxism could not fully explain the development of capitalist society, and so developed theories to explain how capitalism shapes ideas and culture. It's almost entirely a descriptive rather than prescriptive school. Also, hardly anyone in real life actually calls it "Cultural Marxism", they tend to call it "critical theory".
In the right-wing conspiracy theory, it's this secret underground conspiracy (sometimes the conspiracy theorist will say they're all Jewish for extra anti-Semitism points) to destroy the West by 'promoting' certain things, which coincidentally happen to be all the things right-wingers don't like, like LGBT rights and sexual freedom, feminism, atheism, 'political correctness', etc.
In reality, it's a school of social theory and philosophy, which believed that orthodox Marxism could not fully explain the development of capitalist society, and so developed theories to explain how capitalism shapes ideas and culture. It's almost entirely a descriptive rather than prescriptive school. Also, hardly anyone in real life actually calls it "Cultural Marxism", they tend to call it "critical theory".
In the right-wing conspiracy theory, it's this secret underground conspiracy (sometimes the conspiracy theorist will say they're all Jewish for extra anti-Semitism points) to destroy the West by 'promoting' certain things, which coincidentally happen to be all the things right-wingers don't like, like LGBT rights and sexual freedom, feminism, atheism, 'political correctness', etc.
Original post by KimKallstrom
There's probably been about 7 people in history, out the millions who have used the term "cultural Marxism" who wasn't a racist. I'm not necessarily saying to express these views is racist in itself, but it's just one of those where most people who use the term are racists.
I've heard it from a few who weren't racists, but they were still Christian fundamentalists or other hard-right people.
Original post by Mister Morality
You need to explain what you mean by "equal member of society". Do you mean that you will consider that they offer the same amount to society? That they act in an equally positive manner? That all people want the same things? Explain what "equal member" means.
I mean a human being is a human being whether they are a politician or homeless. They shouldn't be judged emotionally because of position in society, emotional judgement has to be backed by at least a conversation of evidence. They should have the the same rights to live and opportunities to strive. It should be encouraged for everyone to make something of themselves and the steps should be clearer.
Original post by KimKallstrom
There's probably been about 7 people in history, out the millions who have used the term "cultural Marxism" who wasn't a racist. I'm not necessarily saying to express these views is racist in itself, but it's just one of those where most people who use the term are racists.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
It's like Holocaust denial. It's not racist in itself to question such things........it's just that nearly everyone who does is actually a racist mong nonetheless.
Define "racist".
The term "racist" is commonly used by the kulturmarxist left to attack or silence their opponents and thereby make it easier to push their agenda. The term "racist" is virulently thrown at whites who wish to preserve their cultural or ethnic heritage but it is rarely if ever used by the left against blacks or arabs who have similar goals.
Original post by anarchism101
In the right-wing conspiracy theory, it's this secret underground conspiracy (sometimes the conspiracy theorist will say they're all Jewish for extra anti-Semitism points) to destroy the West by 'promoting' certain things, which coincidentally happen to be all the things right-wingers don't like, like LGBT rights and sexual freedom, feminism, atheism, 'political correctness', etc.
In the right-wing conspiracy theory, it's this secret underground conspiracy (sometimes the conspiracy theorist will say they're all Jewish for extra anti-Semitism points) to destroy the West by 'promoting' certain things, which coincidentally happen to be all the things right-wingers don't like, like LGBT rights and sexual freedom, feminism, atheism, 'political correctness', etc.
Looks like you have setup a bit of a straw man here. I like how you put political correctness in quotation marks too. Cultural Marxism may be considered a Jewish conspiracy by a few, but that doesn't remove its legitimacy by sane people, for example Dr Sean Gabb and others in the libertarian and paleoconservative movements. Trying to attach negative connotations to the word is a very progressive tactic: "don't pay attention to this man's views- he is a racist", "don't pay attention to this man because he is a conservative". "Did you hear some people actually believe cultural Marxism is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation? Don't listen to any of them because they are anti-Semites."
Well, OK. What you're doing is burying your head in the sand and not engaging your opponents intellectually and hoping they will just go away or, better still, be sent to prison. Like I said, Cultural Marxism is real because we know about Gramsci's notes and the Frankfurt School. It isn't a conspiracy for the same reason Shakespeare's popularity was not a conspiracy. Individuals were heavily influenced by Gramsci and took his message on board. It was a public message for all to hear. Conspiracies take place in smoke-filled rooms all the time, but the roots of cultural Marxism was not a conspiracy in its infancy.
The people claiming Marxism to be destroying the West are being pragmatic about it. Even left-wingers are recognising this. In the US, comedians of note are now refusing to play at universities there because their material is being censored and banned- for fear of upsetting the delicate students. The nation is losing its character and backbone. People are looking around at issues like these and asking how we got here. It all starts with Gramsci, as Marx's economics had been defeated. Now the elites have latched on to these ideas of Gramsci's and used them as a legitimising ideology for their need to govern every aspect of our lives. From who we can employ to what we can and can't put in our bodies, or how much money we must give to people we don't know or care about. The irony is that people still consider cultural Marxism to be a right wing conspiracy theory when even the Conservative government pushed for gay marriage undemocratically, just to appease the progressive left wing media. Doesn't sound to me like something a conservative would do. In the US, Fox News has now been outed as a moderate, if not progressive, media outlet, ever since the primaries with Donald Trump (the feminist arguments were kicking up a storm), which shows there is no longer a right wing voice in mainstream media in 2015. It doesn't make it a conspiracy that everyone in media, hollywood and universities are left-wing progressives however (generally). The same argument is made by feminists, that some people want a 50/50 split down ideological lines at these institutions, but it seems to be that this is a natural occurrence- most people who want to become teachers are left wing. It can't really be helped unless you want to invoke even more regulations and red tape to get more diversity of thought in teachers artificially.
To summarise, people of all political persuasions recognise cultural Marxism and have decided society is far worse off now than it was before it creeped in.
Original post by Mister Morality
It's not about having family members inside those other communities, but about learning to develop those key social skills from a young age. Why do you think there has been a massive increase in diagnoses for social anxiety, depression and other social disorders? Sociopathy is also on the rise. Now, you could suggest this is because of stricter diagnostics and less stigma to be treated, etc. but that's conjecture. What we know is there has been an increase. Learning to share, care and be kind is learned in the home, and you spread these values wherever you go. It's part of the socialising process.
I'm unsure about the first part of this paragraph. Social skills at a young age can be learnt in any environment; at home, at school, in social clubs, etc. As I said earlier you don't need family to develop good social skills and social capital.
I'm no expert on social anxiety, depression, sociopathy, etc. I would imagine better diagnosis and reduced stigma would be a good explanation for the rise in social disorders but if you consider this to be purely conjecture then your guess is as good as mine. There could be other factors, economic, chemical, technological, etc, that we're both unaware of and any combination of these.
Original post by Mister Morality
I agree, all things in moderation is fine. Currently, do you believe those things are being encouraged to be practiced in moderation or as much as possible? Clubbing, binge culture, rock and roll's promotion of drugs and this hook up culture tied to clubbing and even apps. Is this the moderation you're talking about?
I think it is being encouraged. Throughout my entire education I had warned of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, smoking, etc. If anything I have been taught not to try these things at all let alone in moderation. There are still people who do things in dangerous excess (people are stupid) but not everyone does.
Original post by Mister Morality
It is a less free society because whenever you see "inequality", you make it your duty to make the government reach further than it must. Every time the government takes over a role of society from the people, we move further towards tyranny. We must be left to make our own decisions, to fail and succeed. I like a welfare safety net, but what we have now is gargantuan and needs a #2 trim on the sides, short on top.
I wasn't talking about economics, I was talking about social freedom. I think we already live very free lives.
I'm not sure it means anything really. The only times I've seen the term 'cultural Marxist' it's just a general term of abuse used by far right idiots against anyone who condemns their racism, misogyny etc.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- CRITICISMS OF THE MARXIST VIEW OF THE FAMILY - Help please.
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 7192/3 - 13 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Alevel English Literature Essay structure help?
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 1 (7192/1) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]
- Muslim Man and causal sex?
- EPQ title help - homosexuality in literature
- how do you get full marks in 20 mark aqa sociology question a level sociology
- Are communists stupid?
- English Literature coursework Yr12
- SOAS or Edinburgh for Law and Anthropology
- Wadham College Reputation
- English literature B nea HELP!!!
- Green Party supporting Left Wing Terrorist Jailed
- Is sociology exam really that easy?
- Are Fight Club and The Great Gatsby good for English coursework?
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 14th June [Exam Chat]
- Breakdown sociology aqa paper 2 2022
- Sociology essay - Education
- the reign of terror france 1790s
Latest
Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
