/fa/ - Fashion

>>13016565
>What you call cultural marxism is egalitarianism and social progress
Calling it "social progress" is your subjective assessment of it. It's correct to say that it values the state andor concept of 'egalitarianism'.
>which threatens the establishment and people who are used to being in power
It threatens a certain sector of the establishment. Wealth redistribution goes against the interest of the wealthy, mostly in the commercial sector, but it requires giving power to the government to carry out this wealth distribution. More power such as this can lead to the entrenchment of an establishment or elite in the government sector.
>Make no mistake, the human race can be a bunch of selfish, scrooge like people, and that is why we have those among us who call what is happening "cultural marxism", when in fact it is an advancement towards a more fair and egalitarian society.
There are at least two kind of conceptualizations of equality: equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity prizes giving everyone a fair chance to succeed in life, while equality of outcome prizes making sure everyone gets the same standard of living, as high as you can give them. Cultural Marxism, or rather contemporary mainstream liberalism, is an equality of outcome philosophy that tries to corral everyone into more or less the same standard of living---but this has some costs that harm "equality" in other senses of the word.
>If you equate capitalism with an inherently unfair system where some get payed exponentially more while not working any more than those they employ... then yes I would say I see a fair deal of inequality in the society we live in similar to the inherent conditions of unregulated capitalism.
You have a misguided image of capitalism. First, you conflate the profit of the business owner and the employee. Who "pays" the business owner is the customer; who "pays" the employee is the business owner.
cont.