/lit/ - Literature

>>19474395
You will understand when you're older.

>>19474395
another equally shit thread died for this

>>19474405
Tell me now.
>>19474409
Why are leftoids such snide cunts

>>19474395
They hate it because it's true. Their template has been found out.

>>19474490
This. They only succeed via deceit and they know it.

Herbs for shitty threads

"Cultural marxism" is used by uneducated, incel-tier males to describe the normal process of assimilation and convergence of culture. As time goes on, societies tend to get more liberal. This is due to the fact that like-minded individuals tend to congregate, and then their liberalism trickles down to the rest of society.

It's a term that was made up by conspiracy theorists to try to explain why the world is getting more liberal, despite their belief that all progress is illusory.

>>19474482
what the fuck is freudo-marxism? no marxist takes psychoanalysis seriously. they see it as some dead bourgeois homeopathy thing.

>>19474395
Because it's not true

All I know about cultural marxism is that they whine about jazz and black people

>>19474395
A big problem with the phrase "cultural Marxism," for me at least, is that it presupposes that Marxism is against or trying to end Western culture. Marxism came about through Western traditions and Western modernism, and if you actually look at a lot of Marxist theorists, especially the Frankfurt theorists, their criticisms were on the mass consumerism of culture (ie TV, advertisements, Hollywood, etc.) and not Western literature/culture/philosophy as a whole. I forget which theorist off the top of my head (I think it was Adorno, but I could be wrong) called for a return to classic literature instead of the easier form of movies and TV.

AMOGUS

>>19474509
there's no western culture to end

>>19474496
>Erich Fromm

>>19474395
Commies dont like admitting they have always supported prog faggotry

>>19474524
>social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist

>>19474395
Because it's really Cultural Liberalism, anon. These people that LARP as anarchists today are not Marxists at all. Neither are they Bolsheviks. They are radical liberals who pretend to be anarchist. Their chief influences are Franz Fanon and other post-colonial authors. None of them have ever fucking touched Marx or anything related to him.
>>19474509
Calling Enlightenment-era radical revolutionary thought traditional is perhaps a bit of a stretch. It should be noted, however, that Marxism has been completely dead since the fall of the Soviet Union. There are basically no Marxists to be found anywhere, I dare say even in China. People use the aesthetics but they are completely un-Marxist.

>>19474535
You are a salty slav who envies China

>>19474535
I completely agree that Marxism is dead. The only exception I'd say is in literary/art theory, which I honestly think is a lot of fun to use Marxist theory when interpreting text/art.

>>19474395
I've found it to be a structural issue. In the leftist community it's common to say "there's no single definition of x" and ergo it can't be criticized in terms of some fundamental trait that would make it x. That's, besides being untenable for any discussion positive or negative, is a "logical fallacy" or they haven't standardized and justified a logic language which allows this and in any sense they never bring it up. It definitely follows the "no hierarchy", "feels > reals" and a lot of other concepts and, again, this seems exclusive to modern leftist circles.

So if anyone says it's not x, and they try to justify it not being that then it's worth asking what anybody is even talking about then. They usually conflate asymmetric "is" with an equivalency "is", i.e. they'll say it's not marxism because marx literally was born a century prior to crt and marxism is from marx even if a clear historical and metaphysical/academic path leads from marx or even kant to crt (via HABERMAS I must emphasize).

>>19474547
Couldn't that be accurately described as "cultural Marxism" then

>>19474555
How is using a theory to interpret text "cultural Marxism?" If that's the case, is there "cultural Eliotism," or "cultural Derridaism" or "cultural Bloomism"?

>>19474395
It's the most retarded and inaccurate choice of word possible, it's used to describe relatively tame schemes of burgerland megacorps (tranny shilling is nothing compared to Coca Cola™ Death Squads), and it's associated with some especially pathetic cold war conspiracy theories.
It's only palatable to faggots that run their mouth on topics they know nothing about and shit out meaningless word salad like "Freudo-Marxist ideology".

>>19474545
Good call, but I don't think you are entirely correct. I do envy China in some ways, but coincidentally I happened to interact with a bunch of elite CCP kids. They are literally undistinguishable from the most degenerate, superficial and autistic Western zoomers you can imagine. Those people got hit by the 90s TODAY and god damn, they were hit VERY HARD. I fully expect them to collapse alongside us.
>>19474547
It may be "fun", but it is not very relevant anymore and certainly has no practical utility. Most of that shit is usurped by CRT and "representing black and brown bodies" now anyway.

>>19474578
>faggots that run their mouth on topics they know nothing about and shit out meaningless word salad
So like literally every modern social progressive then

>>19474395
Is that a hyena?

>>19474594
CRT and post-colonialism

>>19474568
...I dont think any of those are incorrect.

>>19474594
>Most of that shit is usurped by CRT and "representing black and brown bodies" now anyway.
This is another thing that I was getting at. CRT is cultural Marxism. Take Marxist theory and replace "proletariat" with blacks, women, faggots, trannies, and so on. Also replace "bourgeoise" with white male patriarchy. That is literally all it is.

>>19474594
Doesnt that follow the line of historical materialism as it then reflects upon ideology?

>>19474604
In my mind it's basically the same thing since both go together almost always. I am so fucking tired of it all, but it seems this is the direction the left will be heading in for the next 40 years, at least.

Because it's mostly used as an anti semitic dogwhistle (the term has roots in Nazi "cultural bolshevism" concept) and misrepresents the views of the philosophers it describes as conspiring against the West (most notably the Frankfurt School which 99.9% of them never read a word of).

>>19474535
You are right but I think calling them post-modernists would be the most accurate.

>>19474619
doesnt it also involve something similar to "class consciousness", but in this cause its when the Blacks recognize their "blackness" as a distinct group that functions very similarly. Even stuff like black bodies has a materialist aspect to it.

>>19474596
Yes, and?
Are you sure you like being on the same level as those faggots?

>>19474630
Jean Baudrillard was critical of Marxists and feminists.

>>19474395
Because the phenomenon it is supposed to describe has absolutely nothing to do with Marx, and most modern intellectuals are the sort of unfair elitist bigots who insist that words ought to mean things - worse still, that you ought to know what a word means if you intend to exercise the God-given American freedom of using it

its a conspiracy theory that refers to liberal progressivism in culture but confuses it with "marxism" because a bunch of amerimutt boomers raised on cold war propaganda came up with it

>>19474648
Then why are many of my teachers either marxists who gave up on marxism because it doesnt reflect "modern issues", or explicit marxists who incorporate it as part of theory.

Are you saying there is no relation at all, they are distinct things? because I would wager that one definitely had influence on another.

>>19474395
Really makes u think

>>19474619
CRT is not cultural Marxism dude. Look, this is actually a far more nuanced issue than most people will acknowledge, because there are indeed links between what we know today as CRT, post-colonial, "racial justice" sjw types and Marxism through Third Worldist Maoism and Weather Underground type of shit, but there's basically zero ideological continuity between Marxism and CRT. CRT and Marxism are utterly incompatible - you could say that CRT replaced Marxism, but not that it is a form of Marxism. In fact, you can even find some folkish stuff in certain types of Marxist literature, but the CRT shit of today is an explicitly racial, anti-class movement. Genuine Marxists - extremely rare - are despised as "class reductionists". The current CRT and post-colonial grifter types take their cues from radical strands of liberalism, civil rights, anti-racism, post-colonialism etc., not from Marxists - although they like to usurp the aesthetic.
>>19474621
What do you mean by that? Are you referring to my comments about China? If so, the answer would be no. I am referring to capitalist degeneracy and to cynical consumerism. The Maoist youth of the Cultural Revolution would never have even been capable of imagining incel Chinese weeb NEETs - yet these people are a real and sizeable group.
>>19474630
I think there is certainly a lot of overlap with postmodernism in many ways, but the postmodernists also had very diverse and rich opinions about various topics that the current "revolutionaries" would not even give a second thought. I think linking these people to post-colonialism is far more prudent.

>>19474650
Marxism is a form of liberalism. It is materialist, anti-heirarchical, anti-monarchy, Masonic, and was the next step after the liberal democratic revolutions of the "Enlightenment". Both reject the divine right of kings. Both believe, at the very least, in the separation of church and state, if not eradicating religion and enforcing atheism. The French Revolution, and the American Revolution, perhaps to a lesser extent, were proto-Marxism.

Pretty sure Jameson has used the term before and can be argued gramsci lays a foundation for an actual "cultural marxism" and the long march through the institutioms is a real phenomena but its largely a boogeyman term

>>19474594
Marxism is the apex of the enlightenment ideas, for the good and for the bad. Makes sense that the chinese youth are shallow materialists who see no meaning to anything.

>>19474684
This is a bad post because literally all of the policies listed in your screenshot can be easily linked to capitalist government in the West today.

>>19474704
Then why did the communist manifesto advocate for them. Almost like leftist faggots took over the government

>>19474704
Yes, of course they can. They are two sides of the same shek- uh coin.
>>19474691
>>19474691
>>19474691

>>19474700
>Marxism is the apex of the enlightenment ideas, for the good and for the bad.
I agree with you, but I am Counter-Enlightenment so there's that.
>Makes sense that the chinese youth are shallow materialists who see no meaning to anything.
They used to be very spirited materialists until Dengism, at least. That much has to be conceded to them. Chinese kids today though are utterly broken, just like our zoomers.
>>19474713
If it can be run under capitalism then it obviously is not just an issue of communism. Or are you implying that we are living in a communist society right now? Where's my free education, healthcare, home and livelihood? Even if we're talking about a purely Marxist-Leninist state like the Soviet Union, super-rich billionaires like Bezos and his lot wouldn't be allowed to exist and parasitise on our societies.

>>19474395
Because it was invented by some boomer burger conservative to describe "everything that I don't like" and has no descriptive value and only serves to demonize. Similar to how many people today use "fascist" to refer to anything that they find disagreeable.

>>19474733
They've been slowly replacing capitalism with communism. There are billionaires in china too

>>19474715
I am with you in spirit, but I do not agree with your post there. Words have meaning and we cannot bend that meaning as we see fit. I see Marxism as a further drop from liberalism (and in some ways also an improvement), but I would not claim that the two are the same or even all that similar.
Their metaphysics may be considered identical, though, which is important.

>>19474742
That's because China sold out, that's what I was saying earlier in the thread. They are not a socialist state anymore. Marxism is completely dead. The PRC is a capitalist society with very capitalist problems.

>>19474688
>but there's basically zero ideological continuity between Marxism and CRT
Im at Thanksgiving break, But Tomorrow I can literally show you 2-3 posters on the university post board that intersect the two explicitly in their various groups.

You can say that one sublimates the other, but the current is similar in that it takes ideologies as a byproduct of historical realities and uses similar methodologies in a myopic way.
Read something like The Making of the English working class, and any given text of CRT and the methodology is very similar in how it describes the interaction of group making its critiques of capitalism, its dialectical nature, and otherwise.

>>19474494
>those who oppose the social order are ugly
hahahahahaha

ITT: last men fading away under the artificial light

the amount of corn syrup in this thread could choke a nebraskan. i'll see you all in the security cameras.

>>19474771
I don't understand anything you are saying.

>>19474758
I get what you're saying but if tomorrow universities start running a ton of Nazism societies and all of these societies actually promote a global Bantu imperium, you wouldn't actually think these societies are Nazi, right?
CRT etc. borrow a lot from Marxism, but they are fundamentally incompatible with it in every way - theoretically, practically and strategically. It's a totally different ideology.
>>19474768
Those "anarchists" aren't opposing the social order bro, they're just there to have a good riot.

>>19474670
Are you familiar with the sentence "the workers control the means of production"? He's a bit inescapable.

Marx's ideas on how the future of industrialized nations would pan out were naive and have not been vindicated. This does not mean that his analysis of the structure and function of various economies is useless.

What you are calling Marxism is essentially nothing more than a stripped-down set of analytical tools, and almost everyone in academia will be familiar with those tools because of their broadly applicable utility.

Those who toss around the words "cultural Marxism" are helping themselves to those same analytical tools.

What they actually object to, culturally speaking, is not the tools themselves, but the usage to which those tools are being put.

>>19474768
Yes. And the quote I posted (and this one) explains exactly why they oppose it. Failures all.

>>19474395
It doesnt actually cover anything. Its a boogey man term.

A local Tuscon woman with permanent sunburn sits alone in the fourth floor of a parking structure connected to a small shopping center. She no longer films in her house after her kids asked her to stop. Her son has already made it clear that he wants to go to school on the East Coast. He'll go into debt, never to be paid off, to go to a private university far enough away to excuse not visiting as often. His sister has been vocal lately about telling him how she feels going to school only 3 hours away was a mistake for this very reason. Unaware that there isn't much to save, she only does Facebook Live from her car now to keep their relationship unstrained. Today she'll talk about him, the last of her children under her roof, to an audience of 34 people she can't see, only aware of their existence by the small colorful hearts that float up from the bottom of the screen and their chat comments. Alone in her car with 34 people she admits something to them that she can't talk to him about anymore: she's afraid of what will happen to him in Massachusetts. It's already happening, as far as she's concerned, but they'll make it irreversible. Permanent. They'll take him away from her for good.

For Godssake it's part of the requirements to get in there at this point. One night she had tried to help him write some of his application and on the guide-sheet his high school counselor had given him to help it said: "While many strong admissions essays will focus on overcoming obstacles that helped you grow as a person, it's important to address the privilege one grew up with to also show that you grasp your place in society on a larger scale."

They had a fight that night.

I'm getting bored. Anyways, that's who I imagine is in this thread when I read a lot of your posts

>>19474395
I’m well versed in Marxist theory as well and I don’t find the use particularly offensive or wrong

Fredric Jameson even invented the term himself

>>19474779
you monsters die a thousand pathetic deaths every day and come back to haunt the living

>>19475065
Can you stop speaking allegorically? I don't know what you mean.

>>19475090
It's a sort of larp that he does where he tries to sound like a deep, cryptic, wise old man.

>>19474938
Cozy and empty. Nice work, anon.

>>19474395
>Why does everyone object so strongly to the phrase "cultural Marxism"?
it’s an adaptation of the nazi ‘cultural bolshevism’ thing

>>19474513
Well said

>>19474513
There's no culture to end period. Culture is the ultimate spook.

>>19475239
spooks are real, otherwise you would not need a word for them.

>>19475285
They're real in the sense they live inside selected heads.

>>19474395
bruh modern social justice is based on classical liberal presuppositions, preceding marxism. tabula rasa and all that

>>19475391
Yes, but most things of consequence do to some extent.

The human mind necessarily works on sensation, and ideas that connect those sensations together.

>>19475400
It actually doesn't since it doesnt focus so much on individual human rights as it does focus on biological and cultural determinism. On a core fundamental level it is illiberal.

>>19475403
it recognises that social and economic factors influence the development of individual consciousness, sometimes impeding on the ability to participate fully in a meritocratic, contract-based society. social justice is about addressing those social and economic factors that impede. people start dropping off the bandwagon of radicalism when they're satisfied with their comfortable bourgeois existence - nothing marxist about it

>>19475420
Yes it does, its talking about a group based fundamental determinism that is likewise the focus of marxist thought, but expanding it to culture and sex and other aspects of identity that are easier to play word games around as compared to class. If someone is a marxist up to the point where they are comfortably bourgeois, you may call them a half hearted marxist, or a wine socialist, But if someone does the same for the more "humanities" aspect of the indivigual, would not that be the same category of prerogative?
I think you are arguing about degrees rather than types.

>>19474395
>Why does everyone object so strongly to the phrase "cultural Marxism"?
because you are a dumb poor zoomer. One day when you have your own private property, you'll hate the communists subverting your government too. they're everywhere, but their enclave is academia. that's where the program their useful idiots into thinking Marxist ideas are good or even make sense.

tldr: private property is a human right, marxists want to take it from you along with all your unwoke opinions about freedom of speech or thought.

>>19474405
fpbp

>>19475446
it's not an expansion, in fact it's a rather ugly translation that doesn't make sense as culture/sex is not at all functionally similar to labour in historical materialism.
i'm arguing people will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to pursue social justice, internet marxists or not, but the fact remains that it is a fundamental part of the classical liberalist project, within the structure of a humanist 'metaphysics' - i.e. the laws, politics, ethics etc. - just as people will use whatever tools at their disposal to counter it. at the end of the day no one realises it's simple republican democracy in action, not a battle over its fate

>>19475533
>doesn't make sense as culture/sex is not at all functionally similar to labour in historical materialism.

>he didn't read hoppe's short history of man
oof

>>19475538
i'm not sure why i would either

>>19474684
Disregarding the rest of this drivel for a second, communism is predicated on the abolition of the state.
>b-b-but
nobody cares about your midwit screencap retard.

>>19474684
the bible did a lot of this too except for making a bank

>>19474742
>everything bad is because communism

Who are the cultural marxists? Does anyone actually identify as one? Or is this just a polemical taxonomy invented by conservative bloggers? Also as someone else itt noted, the Frankfurt school's hostility to corporate mass media is shared by many of today's conservatives? Are conservatives so groundless as to merely be the progressives of yesteryear? If so what is their plea, that things be frozen in the time they prefer the most? Not a very compelling thing to whine about, especially since it means they are eternal losers.

>>19475581
Ok, what termonology would you prefer for the particular denomination of people? Are you saying this achademic subset doesnt exist? Or would you prefer to make the group nebulous? They are not necissarily capitalists, many are quite open about being anti-capitalist. Not necissarily liberal, since they critique liberalism for being too disadvantageous for certain groups.

Please, give us a better term for the sake of conversation then.

>>19475613
They call themselves "progressives," if we are being contemporary. They are not formally schooled in continental philosophy even if they have some continental influence and attended universities for their sociology and poli sci degrees. The Frankfurt school of old simply is what it is. But if you are talking about contemporary ideologies, there are no great writers or theorists or movements who anchor our politics at whom you can point and shriek. Doesn't exist. There's people who run for office backed by billionaire donor consortiums and then ghostwrite a book about why they deserve your vote. So just be mad at who you are mad at and don't bother trying to sound clever, since it can be shown with five minutes of research that you're coming up with incoherent and opaque reasons to be against something that doesn't benefit you, when you could just say "your policies don't benefit me so fuck you"

>>19475637
yah, idk anon, because "progressive" itself is such a nondescript terminology. Anything you think makes things better is progressive. And I wouldnt call all self proclaimed "Progressives", "cultural marxists".

Its a particular conceptual framework, and I dont think calling a framework "progressive" is accurate or useful in the least. You touched on actual framework without going into what it is.
>Not formally schooled in continental philosophy even if they have some continental influence
Its all well and dandy if you believe its funded by billionaires, but that is not descriptive of its conceptualization.
There is a block in conceptual communication

Cultural Marxism is a valid descriptor and essentially refers to most theories which came out of the Frankfurt School. The only thing that is erroneous (and which I rarely ever see, it seems to be a fabricated insult created by people who desire to misrepresent) is conflating cultural Marxism with postmodernism. The Frankfurt School was not postmodernist, but then again I have never really seen anyone state they were except leftists attempting to mock the supposedly employed phrase "postmodern cultural Marxists", a phrase I've only ever seen said leftists employ.

>>19475400
>classical liberal presuppositions
same presuppositions as marxism

>>19475509
You clearly have missed the point of the OP entirely

>>19475581
There is a vast difference between neoconservative talking heads like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro as compared to the traditionalist right which has basically nothing in common with them at all. You should know this. You people always whine about how Marxists are different from liberal SJWs and that the two should not be conflated.

>>19475788
Its actually not. Classical liberalism presupposes human rights in the vein of Locke or Rousseau. Marxism proper, does not and sees all things as a material process. I would say they eventually conflate in action and rhetoric, since the eventuality of class counsiousness will inevitably take on moral undertones in its ideology since humans as is are ideological creatures.

I would say modern social justice grew out of this conflageration of using both materialism and liberal idealism, partially causing its fundamentally schizophrenia nature. Something that is niether wholy idealistic, nore holy materialistic.

>>19475751
yeah this sums it up desu

>>19475813
>Holy materialism
I want this to be an ideology (ibf pantheism)
>>19475812
cute cat.

>>19475813
There is a certain amount of truth to what you are saying but you are missing the bigger picture. Both classical liberalism and Marxism start with materialist presuppositions and have egalitarianism as their telos and basically what I already said here
>>19474691
>>19474691
>>19474691
Marxism is liberalism 2.0. It is a revised method of achieving thw goals of liberalism. And like I have said before, classical liberal movements like the French Revolution were proto-Bolshevism. They have the same spirit. They have the same metaphysics, or to put it more precisely, the same LACK of metaphysics and the same assumptions of vulgar empiricism.
Leftists today often try to say that classical liberalism is "right wing" but did you know it is a common belief among traditionalist Christians that Satan essentially was the first "classical liberal"? He rebelled against the King (in this case, literally God) and started a revolution among the angels who followed him.
And you know, classical liberals im the 18th century were the crazy leftist kooks of their time. The right wing was the traditionalist monarchy.

pic rel

>>19475860
>Both classical liberalism and Marxism start with materialist presuppositions
im not sure classical liberalism does, I think its a form of idealism. Maybe an idealism without a robust metaphysics, but an idealism nonetheless. If you read Hobbes or locke, you might see slight aspects of burgeoning Materialism, but I think it firmly stakes itself on a first principle of a conscious human like entity and its relation with the outside world. "Natural state" and all that. And getting people closer to that natural state (not disrelated to a perfect form sort of conception). While Marxism makes materialism fully material by not engaging with a "hypothetical first man" as the first principle, but that of dialectical reasoning as it relates to physical objects. Humanity being a later construct that follows the nature of all other objects.

>>19475788
yes, humanism

>>19475907
Yeah.
And now even that is turning into transhumanism, which has the same presuppositional starting points but, ironically, is anti-human in a lot of ways.
The Satanic religion of "progress" marches on with all its contradictions.

>>19474509
>I forget which theorist off the top of my head (I think it was Adorno, but I could be wrong) called for a return to classic literature instead of the easier form of movies and TV.
https://youtu.be/CGo6F5zSb-g

>>19474535
>There are basically no Marxists to be found anywhere, I dare say even in China. People use the aesthetics but they are completely un-Marxist.
How so?

>>19474594
>I do envy China in some ways, but coincidentally I happened to interact with a bunch of elite CCP kids. They are literally undistinguishable from the most degenerate, superficial and autistic Western zoomers you can imagine.
In what way? Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a right-wing Western ideologies positing a hierarchy of cultures and civilizations which puts da West and European-derived civilizations (i.e. white people) at the top of a global pecking order would land with Chinese kids with a big fat dud.

>>19474688
>The Maoist youth of the Cultural Revolution would never have even been capable of imagining incel Chinese weeb NEETs - yet these people are a real and sizeable group.
Perhaps China's youth of today are more knowledgeable than the youth of the Cultural Revolution. Let's not overly romanticize the Cultural Revolution.

>>19475812
>You people always whine about how Marxists are different from liberal SJWs and that the two should not be conflated.
If we divide the world system into the center and peripheral, where the center controls most of the resources and is on the top of the hierarchy while the peripheral is exploited, then "cultural Marxism" is essentially just the whining of the center's shareholders.

For the trad boys, consider the center as a typical Catholic Church while the peripheral is the brainwashed and oppressed peasants. The Catholic Church owns the property, is granted privileges and tax exemptions, justifies a monarchy, and charges the peasants a price for tickets to heaven. But at the same time, those priests are "sympathizing" with the peasants without taking any meaningful action other than just praying to God or even blaming God for why the peasants have problems. Naturally, and secretly, the priests still mess with little boys while confessing their sins and asking for forgiveness.

So, cultural Marxism in relation to the world system externally and also society internally is the whining from the priests. Cultural Marxists do not realize that they are actually also the shareholders of the system, just not high enough as the pope or a bishop. They are a part of the problem which they hilariously propose to solve. They do not plan to overthrow the "church," nor do they plan to give up their privileges by descending themselves to the level of peasants, so all they can do is whine about some metaphysical, abstract concepts and terminologies that do not mean anything to our world.

>>19474495
Why wouldn't like minded conservative individuals congregate and make the world more conservative?

>>19477319
Conservatism is exclusionary

>>19477432
Conservatives are less likely to discriminate based on beliefs, substantiate your counter claim.

>>19474768
Liberalism is the social order, leftists are its catspaw

>>19476481
>How so?
Because the Chinese today are economically liberal Dengists. There are Maoist protest groups and stuff but they're marginal, no one cares about them.
>In what way? Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a right-wing Western ideologies positing a hierarchy of cultures and civilizations which puts da West and European-derived civilizations (i.e. white people) at the top of a global pecking order would land with Chinese kids with a big fat dud.
I have no idea what you are saying here and I especially have no idea about what to make of your question. I am assuming that you are saying Chinese kids don't care about Marxism because it's an ideology based on the worship of technology and industry which are foreign to the Chinese people and the Chinese mind, but I am not sure that's what you are saying.
>Perhaps China's youth of today are more knowledgeable than the youth of the Cultural Revolution. Let's not overly romanticize the Cultural Revolution.
No. The Cultural Revolution youth had both superior understanding and vastly superior spirit. The kids today are degenerate, not just misguided or poorly educated. In fact, I am sure a lot of them are far more knowledge in technical subjects than their predecessors, but their personalities rate far below them.

>>19477530
No they are not. The overarching ethos is that people should behave a certain way this excludes many people which do not wish to or fail to conform (faggots, niggers, tranners)

>>19477651
At any rate, I don't actually believe there are many sincere conservatives/liberals left. It's become more a label that you wear

>>19477637
>The kids today are degenerate, not just misguided or poorly educated.
Honestly, how many young people are willing to trade League of Legends, PUBG, Battlefield, COD, NBA 2K, FIFA, Tiktok, YouTube, Pornhub... for an ancient book based on some historical facts, superstition, and political propaganda, which nine out of 10 of them have no time nor patience to even read about?

>>19477714
Not many. My point, though, is that it bodes poorly for them, just like this state of affairs bodes poorly for us. Without even the passion and confidence in pursuing truth in one's own way, civilisation inevitably declines.

>>19474395
it's meaningless to talk about "applying Marxism to social as opposed to economic issues". explaining social issues correctly (i.e. according to Marxism) necessarily involves economic issues, because Marxism explains ideological social forms by the form of economic relations that a society's reproducton is based on. people who detach the two are anti-Marxists, and can only be judged to be Marxists based on superficial and ignorant analogies, not based on the actual content of what they say.
>>19475860
>Marxism is liberalism 2.0. It is a revised method of achieving thw goals of liberalism.
the goal of liberalism was to defeat fedual privilege and establish and sustain the dominance of the bourgeoisie. the goal of Marxism is to break the dominance of the bourgeoisie. those goals are opposed.

>>19474495
The world isn't getting more liberal, quite the opposite

>>19477774
>goal of liberalism
Yes, and the first one naturally leads to the second one. Marxism is not anti-liberalism. It is the next step in the post-Enlightenment downward trend. Don't you see how it is a natural evolution from one to the next?

>>19474395
There is a certain tribe of people who don't like it when you notice things.

>>19477894
just say it out loud you fucking pussy

>>19474395
>Why does everyone object so strongly to the phrase "cultural Marxism"?
it's a reformulation of "cultural Bolshevism", designed with the express purpose of washing out its association with the odious Nazis. the idea, however, is fundamentally the same (pie-in-the-sky nonsense about international jewish conspiracies included), and I contend that everybody who firmly believes in it should be lined up against the wall and given a stern talking to

>>19474395
They know that the first step required to exorcise a demon is to know their name.

>>19477660
>>19477651
A conservative is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo. This describes millions of people, probably far more than those who want change

>>19477870
>Yes, and the first one naturally leads to the second one.
sure, bourgeois society leads to its own negation. still doesn't mean that the negation isn't a negation
>Marxism is not anti-liberalism.
yes it is. it serves the opposite goal (abolishing bourgeois society vs establishing and consolidating it) and to that end it smashes liberal dogmas such as popular will, private property, methodological individualism, human rights and so on.
>Don't you see how it is a natural evolution from one to the next?
it's an evolution in the sense that it's bourgeois society that bears its own negation, just like the development of cities under feudalism has created the bourgeoisie. but we're still dealing with a negation. your original claim was different: that they have the same goal. that one remains incorrect.

it was a 90's conspiracy meme from american talk radio that was popularised in Anders Breivik's "manifesto".
It's a term with poor provenance, that is used exclusively with morons and has very little in common with marxism.
Its a propoganda tool used by grifters to invoke the boogie man of marxism and communism.

>>19478015
Sure thing, kid.

I don’t get the critique that it’s a dog whistle to “national bolshevism” when virtually all the people discussing cultural Marxism are staunchly defending liberal democracy? The claim is that the people saying it are crypto-nazis but they’re actually usually sweet harmless old men that care deeply about enlightenment values and liberalism. I haven’t seen one connection of a person using cultural Marxism in some nefarious way (I’m sure this exists on the internet somewhere but I’m also aware that there are leftists claiming to be actual cultural marxists so no need to associate an extreme position (s) with reality here). The lengths leftists go through to make this link make me think cultural Marxism is a great way to discuss it all. That being said most of the people talking about it unfortunately also associate it with post modernism and clearly don’t understand post modernism at all except for the fact that it propagates cultural relativity. Claims about race and trans identity that cultural marxists spew are truth claims and very much not post modern at all. Maybe that could be understood historically?

>>19477908
But most of the time it is milquetoast liberal boomers like Jordan Peterson who hate Nazism even more than Marxism.

>>19478061
Yeah I agree with this

>>19474395
Read Adorno, Marcuse and Foucault, it's all there.
True "communism" will only come by the control of the means of culture and communication, not the means of production.

>>19478189
the point of dogwhistles is that hapless idiots disseminate them

>>19478061
>I don’t get the critique that it’s a dog whistle to “national bolshevism” when virtually all the people discussing cultural Marxism are staunchly defending liberal democracy?
a lot of liberals grasp at straws like that because they understand that seeing fascism everywhere as that it helps them defend capitalist society. if fascism is always around the corner, then they can always say to the workers: "this is no time and place for you to be combative against us now. don't you see that all the good people need to come together to defend society against fascism? do you want another holocaust to happen or something?"
>>19478264
the means of culture and communication are held by the class that holds the means of production

>>19478371
that seeing fascism everywhere helps them defend*

>>19478371
So I guess it’s actually a gamified exchange of more capitalist liberals calling other moralist liberals fascists because it enables the entire paradigm to continue. This would indicate a few things to me 1) that the stranglehold liberalism has on modernity is truly strong and 2) perhaps liberalism has outgrown itself in some sense. It’s modern market neo-liberalism vs moralist liberalism. There are no fascists or even leftists in reality but a plethora of liberalism’s to choose from and to truly be a radical of any kind is to break free of that paradigm. Hence the rise of so-called populism (seems like a soft faggoty populism to me but people are starting to realize the game is broken).

>>19475562
Yes

>>19475554
>it's totally a coincidence that our governments are instituting the short term plans of the communist manifesto
Kek no. Commies are obviously never going to "abolish the state" that's just something they say so they can grab power

>>19477651
Well it depends how you look at it. Liberals(broadly speaking) have tendency to accept outcasts, but they are more exclusionary towards conservatives, while conservatives don't like outcasts but don't mind liberals. So if you think being exclusionary is about disliking small but distinct groups then conservatives would be exclusionary, if you'd be concerned about the raw volume of people being excluded then liberals are that.
That still doesn't explain why don't conservatives form cliques and take over institutions, of course, you're just here drunk on liberation rhetoric rather than answering it. Pro tip - there's a finger that presses on the scale to make it move in direction.

>>19474395
The ironic synthesis of Marxist criticism of capitalism with the outcome of its standing as an ideology. That Marxism becomes dogmatic and restrictive, while at the same time remaining nebulous, according to its conceptual classifications. As a cultural artifact, it assumes a hegemony of proper critique and a monopoly on ideation relating to socio-cultural and economic understandings but is ultimately just reflexive; the fundamental criticism being that it denigrates cultural institutions by not only adhering to but actually forcing a doctrine of materialism.

Aside from the idea that Marxism, as an intellectual tool, becomes dogmatic, there's also another irony in that it posits capitalism as a perversion and entrapment of the material desires of man but Marxism comes by this idea by denying and reducing the product of men's souls.

At the level of talking heads, which is how the idea of "cultural Marxism" is usually come across, the concept is oversimplified and becomes reduced to emotive arguments centering around the general decline of cultural institutions and piecemeal soundbites regarding the existence of intellectual dogmatism as it relates to things like "equity" (i.e. a reduction of human experience via the abuse and selective interpretation of data).

>>19478626
>perhaps liberalism has outgrown itself in some sense
it has definitely outgrown itself partially, because it's no longer necessary as a weapon against the aristocracy and the clergy for capital to remove pre-capitalist barriers to development. capital has achieved such uncontested level of control that it can use measures which contradict liberalism. this begun for good with fascism, continued with the absorption of fascist characteristics by democracies after WWII and now can be best observed in China, which was in the position to have its bourgeois revolution without much use of liberalism and is therefore less bound by it.
on the other hand, liberalism is still far from dead because it retains and will retain many uses: sections of the bourgeoisie that have interest in less state intervention at a given time still use it, the petty bourgeoisie definitely still uses it all the time in decrying big capital, states use it against one another, the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie use it against the workers to prevent their independence (see the earlier example of fascism always being around the corner), and so on. liberalism is then not nearly as radical and vigorous as it was in the bourgeois revolutionary phase, but they'll never discard it completely.
>>19478661
>it's totally a coincidence that our governments are instituting the short term plans of the communist manifesto
yes, capitalism leads to communism. did you figure that out yourself? you're like a second coming of Marx!

>>19479076
>, capitalism leads to communism
If communists infiltrate your government then sure, nothing inevitable about it despite your 19th century meme theories

>>19474405
>>19474409
Because it makes obvious that the liberal social agenda is Jewish and naming the Jew is a big no no to libtards.

>>19479090
they can't merely infiltrate it because they must openly lead a broad class movement. but generally yes, it will have to come about through the communist party seizing political power. you're just repeating Marx 101.

>>19479315
I don't give a shit about Marx, communists infiltrated the US through a criminal financial cartel

>>19479328
okay buddy

>>19479339
Yeah you'll never even come close to touching that because you might actually get in trouble. Keep warbling about "capital" you're really scaring the ruling class

>>19479351
haha

Have any of you ever seen a single meaningful or productive conversation with a Marxist? Ever once?

>>19474508
Jazz is fascist and that's a good thing

>>19477870
>Historical materialism
>True
Go back to bunker chan

>>19474395
Idk its as if they pretend the frankfurt school wasnt a thing

>>19474495
This is a non-argument, a straw man pure and simple.
>>19474509
Cultural marxism is.about curating the behavior characteristics that are optimal for a marxist society this should be obvious
>>19474550
Its called jewish pilpul
>>19474578
Crackhead
>>19474629
Its true, heeb
>>19474648
>has nothing to do with marx
(You)
>>19474688
Cultural marxism seeks to amplify behavior in a way that benefits marxist society, CRT is the tool for this.
>>19474736
Brainless

>>19479957
>Cultural marxism seeks to amplify behavior in a way that benefits marxist society, CRT is the tool for this.
How does CRT benefit Marxism? CRT undermines the very foundations of class-based solidarity and makes Marxist revolution impossible. CRT appeals to "anarchist" types and to intellectuals who hate the West and think criminals from minority background will form some sort of revolutionary vanguard or whatever, but actual Marxists shouldn't see any benefit in CRT. It's a race-based doctrine, it's antithetical to class-based ones by default.

>>19474550
This. Even in this thread, "it's not cultural marxism because Marx wouldn't endorse it" or similar arguments. That's irrelevant. It's about the process, not the name, but
>>19479957
>Its called jewish pilpul

>>19479995
Anon classes ultimately were to be deconstructed in marxism, and deconstruction race theory is a stripping of the old way in the exact format that marxism needs for the type of civil cohesion required. CRT is the propaganda that drives morale in a marxist society. Do not think for a moment that they aren't perfectly co-opted together.

>>19474395
Any good nature documentaries on weasels?

>>19474395
They just hate to be named, because once you can identify them you can begin to fight them.

>>19480044
I have no idea what you are saying my friend. Marxism does not at all deconstruct classes, on the contrary, it attempts to construct and articulate them - you can agree or disagree about how legitimate its presentation of the matter is, but it values class highly. Class is, in Marxism, the progressive driver of history. To relegate that driver to a secondary factor and cede primacy to - essentially - a racial "anti-colonial" struggle is to do away with Marxism as a whole.
Deconstruction and the critique of identity can be much more easily associated with postmodernism, but even here most postmodern methods are only borrowed by CRT and "post-colonialists" as offensive tools and not proper doctrines.
I continue to assert that contemporary leftists almost exclusively rely on the ideas of Foucault ("power permeates society") filtered through a "post-colonial" lens (i.e. "white supremacy permeates society). This has nothing to do with Marxism.

>>19480093
I have no idea why you think the marxist emphasis on the existence of class implies it doesn't intend to invalidate it. That is the end game of marxism, inequity invalidated, therefore class invalidated. CRT is the perfect application because when you deconstruct race you inevitably tear layers of the class system apart. You cannot deny this. A reshuffling or ideally a destruction of class, via a race based power philosophy.

They don't want you to have a particular phrase by which to identify them because they innately understand that what they are doing is deplorable and if people recognize it they will be stopped.

Leftism doesn't work. Leftists are mentally deranged. Please stop spamming about your dogshit ideology.

>>19480124
But you are missing the point - Marxism is concerned with material circumstances and an ideology of progress. Marxism does aim to abolish class, yes, but Marx is very explicit that this can only occur under the final form of communism and not before then. And once communism is achieved, the understanding is that all will be perfectly free. This idea of racial categories holding absolute value, especially so today, and the idea of giving them primacy, is profoundly anti-Marxist.
The angle you seem to be heading towards with your post is precisely a Maoist Third Worldist position where white people are some sort of universal bourgeoisie and non-whites the proletariat, but this is not an orthodox view. Even the Third Worldist communists only referred to things in this manner in regards to systems, not people - a white proletarian was still a proletarian, the basis for class collaboration was not eliminated. Today, the CRT folks literally claim that no matter what your material circumstances are, you benefit from some mystical "white privilege" that you cannot discard and which is present in everything you do. This is completely incompatible with Marxism - if anything, we could compare it to an inverted fascism where the "Us" is given primacy, but instead of pursuing victory it pursues self-annihilation. This has nothing to do with class primacy, historical progress or the means of production.

>>19480212
You are correct with everything you've said anon however I am dumbfounded at how you are not seeing the necessity in the total restructering of class systems, a conditioning of personality, a change in identity being required for marxism to operate optimally. Marxism is a lame duck when its not able to shake up identity. When things are shaken enough, marxism can be dominant and can more effectively regulate behavior. This is why religion was destroyed in the various countries we are both aware of. CRT is simply the golden goose of force multipliers for systemic change. You ride that wave, or miss it. In a few centuries, marxism may co-opt a something different to maintain its power balance.

>>19480080
>>19480137
This is true. Notice how they ALWAYS slip around and avoid clarity, instead saying that everything they is """umm not real Marxism, sweaty pie" or "ummmm that has nothing to do with progressivism, chud" and so on. They always dodge and evade and play word games and they NEVER are clear about what they stand for. They also claim that feminism, social degeneracy, etc., is the result of capitalism, which isn't necessarily wrong, but they ignore the fact that Marx himself supported feminism and destroying the family too. They are sneaky little rats who obfuscate and their answer for everything is "ummm sweaty, that's not real x" even though they still support that anyway.

>>19480255
I found a documentary on weasels from PBS Nature series. Their quality tends to be variable but this one has decent reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Weasel-Ana-Gasteyer/dp/B08K871QMB/

I've noticed older PBS Nature entries were better though, but I will still give it a shot.

>>19480255
Defining your political goal as something which will obviously never happen(le classless.stateless sneed) is a useful tool to create endless series of motte and bailey. You can then arbitrarily declare anything that happens as being either LeGood, because it is "leading to gommmunism" or LeBad, because it's a heckin reactionary capital fascism, justifying said analysis through 300 page labyrinths of talmudic "theory" you can sneer at people for not having read. The actual pattern is just that you praise you and your allies getting power obviously and declare everything else fascism.

>>19474395
Jews.

>>19474395
The concept of "cultural marxism" was invented by retarded uneducated boomers who don't understand what marxism even is. They see it as wanting absolute equality or some shit like that. Also they associate anything bad with marxism because of their macarthyist education. Then when they see stuff like richfags supporting increased immigration (to lower wages) they're brains break and they start thinking that the rich are marxist because they hate the working class. Absolutely retarded "people"

>>19480242
We have seen Marxist revolutions in the past and none of them needed CRT, though. Moreover, Marxism as a force is completely dead today - there are no serious Marxist groups or movements to speak of anywhere, even in "communist" China. How can Marxism make use of CRT when CRT not only contradicts its most basic principles, but has seeming completely replaced Marxism and poached off all of the left wing intellectuals that worshipped class in decades past?
The CRT proponents and leftist radicals today are essentially very radical liberals, pseudo-anarchists, "anti-racists" and "anti-fascists". They are not Marxist, nor Bolshevik, nor communist in any real sense - the best you will see from them is larping as "anarcho-communists", but that does not translate into engagement with any Marxist theory or praxis, they just do meth and go to riots together. That is all they do. And their haute bourgeoisie handlers pay their bail when they go to jail and run their entire organisational network. These people have no ideology and no strategy - they are just "militant anti-fascists". That is all they are. Take them at their word.

>>19480298
Did a youtube video tell you that

>>19480304
This is the deepest bad faith denialism I've seen in a very long time. I don't need to say much, the "its not marxism" shit is over used. Just sad at this point. CRT did not exist during earlier cultural revolutions, and INDEED other types of cultural shaking up was utilized to extreme degrees. You are definitely purposefully refusing to understand that cultural marxism is the curating of the optimal CULTURE for marxist ideology, at this particular time CRT has been widely selected the entire western world as the ethos for this 21st century marxism. There was different propaganda in the past, and there will probably be different propaganda in the future. Right now, marxism lives on CRT.

>>19480124
>inequity invalidated, therefore class invalidated
the other way around.
>CRT is the perfect application because when you deconstruct race you inevitably tear layers of the class system apart.
CRT is a tool non-white middle class and bourgeois people use to wrest their "fair" shot at participating in the fruits of exploitation. it has shit to do with Marxism. the class system rests on property and it can only be undermined by society taking common possession of all property, not by anti-discrimination activism.
>>19480199
true, and the only thing that can defeat leftism is communism. you rightard morons are just fueling them more because you're their mirror images.
>>19480242
you aren't saying anything coherent
>>19480255
>but they ignore the fact that Marx himself supported feminism and destroying the family too
it's not a matter of supporting anything but recognizing the movement of history. and Marx never would've supported feminism, which is a bourgeois movement. the only thing he supported was ending the subjugation of women, but again it's not like there's a choice, despite what your incel fantasies might lead you to believe.
>>19480290
Marxists don't define their goal as reaching some communist society but as unifying proletarian struggle in time and space and arming it with the necessary theoretical weapons.

>>19480328
>Marx never would've supported feminism, which is a bourgeois movement. the only thing he supported was ending the subjugation of women,

>>19480328
>you arent saying anything coherent
State what you have issue with

Also, your entire post is a lie.

>>19480242
https://youtu.be/DIexJCpFsD8

>>19474395
>It is an accurare description of the modern social justice movement in the way they apply Freudo-Marxist ideology to social as opposed to economic issues.

No it's not.

>>19480349
Very mature

Im certainly against everything that one might label as "cultural marxism" but the label its self is pure liberal nonsense used to distract retarded boomer conservative and libertarian types from the fact that the very liberalism they support is responsible for everything they hate

>>19480328
>Marx never would've supported feminism
But actually he did. He wanted to "liberate" women from their traditional role in the family.
>the only thing he supported was ending the subjugation of women
Exactly. You said it yourself.

>>19480328
>Marxists don't define their goal as reaching some communist society but as unifying proletarian struggle in time and space and arming it with the necessary theoretical weapons.
See hes literally doing it right now, "no we actually want this vague thing I cant clearly describe that happens to involve giving me and my friends power"

>>19480355
Different systems require different ethos from the public, cultural marxism relates to the personality of the group. You could well form a term for the curating of the proper capitalist ethos, and perhaps it would be easy, to find a name, I can think of many actually.

>>19480362
I want the diamond quarry of stars! We will allow no one to tear our earth into nuclei, to tear our air with the points of sharpened spears! Perhaps the blue sky above us is too small? This is not the cowardice that screams under a gray overcoat, nor the cries of those who have nothing to eat. It is an enormous people's thunderousity!

>>19480305
What makes you think that

>>19480398
To me it comes off as a bunch of bad takes quickly condensed, as if a silly face making out of shape but skinny and also unshaven male with glasses told you about it on youtube

>>19480342
>>19480359
>In America on the contrary, socialism was becoming quite fashionable among the cultured middle classes.
>Here the International was seen, not as a threat, but rather as an interesting novelty. It attracted the attention of all sorts of middle class “progressives”: liberals, pacifists, feminists, temperance societies and even religious preachers. In New York, Section 12 of the IWA was taken over by a wealthy bourgeois feminist by the name of Victoria Woodhull, who Marx described as “a banker's woman, free-lover, and general humbug [hypocrite]”, and Tennessee Claflin her sister.
>Section 9 was founded by her sister and was of the same kind. Woodhull was the first woman along with her sister to operate a brokerage firm in Wall Street and then open a weekly newspaper called modestly Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, advocating among a hotchpotch of demands including sex education, free love, women's suffrage, short skirts, spiritualism, vegetarianism, and licensed prostitution. But its main purpose for the sisters was advertising themselves and their bourgeois-liberal ideas.
>Marx referred to Section No. 12 as a group “founded by Woodhull, and almost exclusively consisting of middle-class humbugs and worn-out Yankee swindlers in the reform business”.
of course they got kicked out from the First International
>>19480344
I don't have an issue with anything because I didn't get a single coherent statement from reading that
>>19480362
it's that anon who imputed to Marxism a vague goal of achieving some mostly undefined communist society. unifying and arming the proletariat here and now, on the other hand, is the most concrete thing in the world compared to that. and I don't know nor care about you power fantasies but please don't project them on me.

>>19480421
What does "unifying" the proletariat mean? Does it by any chance mean them doing what you want them to, perhaps under the leadership of a "vanguard" of you and your friends?

I understand what arming them means of course, seems admirable to me, I think everyone should have machine guns

>>19480421
Okay I will try again. In order for marxism to run optimally, it must be the dominant ideology. This first and foremost requires the shaking up of existing ideology. When race ideology is very strong, it must be adapted. The fight of the proletariat is the fight of the minority! Messages get mixed, all that matters at the end is power shifts to an adequate degree. Certain races are very pesky with how consistent they are with their ethos, and without destroying that the class cannot be deconstructed.

>>19480405
I'm was mostly just shit posting cause I'm drink but I do honestly think anybody who thinks the rich are marxist is retarded

>>19480450
drunk*

>>19474494
What work is this quote from? Prussianism?

>>19480455
Hour of decision

>>19480433
>What does "unifying" the proletariat mean?
it means connecting the various fragmented worker struggles into a single movement so that the workers thereby get more power to enforce their demands
>>19480443
>In order for marxism to run optimally, it must be the dominant ideology.
no, it can't be the dominant ideology. in bourgeois society the dominant ideology is the bourgeois ideology. and beyond bourgeois society there's no Marxism because there's no longer need for it as there's no class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

>>19480366
everything about "cultural marxism" is about creating the perfect conditions for capitalism by creating the perfect worker-consumer society that is apathetic towards traditional values and morality that get in the way of capital, where values and identity is commodified to the point that even your goddamn gender is a product you can buy and switch out, and once again, any moral foundations that may have opposed this are eliminated.

>>19480450
Ok anon so you like many people do not know what cultural marxism is, even most right wingers do not know. For whatever reason, the meaning of cultural marxism got flayed very very quickly. I can clear the air. I have provided am actual definition ITT rather than the "durr its just a spook" that you commonly hear.

>>19480464
>it means connecting the various fragmented worker struggles into a single movement
Run by whom?

>>19480464
Lol anon so what is marxism is a marxist society? What a silly way to argue.
>>19480465
Well anon theres a lot of ways to look at things, I do very much agree with Marx on something. Authority is violence and this is not something that can be escaped. No matter what, it is violence.

>>19474513
>>19475126
>>19475239
Post nose

>>19480473
run by those of the workers who are most advanced in grapsing of the entire movement, most combative and most willing to work for it at that level
>>19480478
>Lol anon so what is marxism is a marxist society? What a silly way to argue.
did you mean "in"? as I said, in a communist society there is no Marxism except in history books. Marxism is the theoretical weapon of the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. it dies after that struggle has ended.

>>19474495
>despite their belief that all progress is illusory

progressing towards what? defining what you are progressing towards and why means everything, yet you use the word as if it means nothing.

Authoritarianism isn't progress in the minds of a lot of people.

>>19480496
>run by those of the workers who are most advanced in grapsing of the entire movement, most combative and most willing to work for it at that level
You're (shockingly) not being very precise about how this all important question of power, of who is going to lead the proletariat, is going to be decided, what mechanism is going to accomplish this and protect from the leaders simply abusing the proles they are in charge of as any elite can do

>>19480496
Yes I had a typo, I am glad you were able to understand me despite that. Marxism would make much more sense as a theoretical weapon but you see anon when real life comes into play they theoretical part goes away.

>>19474629
the term was coined by a jew.

Are these people trolls trying to make me anti-semetic or are these people really this evil

>>19480478
listen when the jcuie is loked.itsloked.
>inb4madcan>>19480497
>>19480497
go outt and kill 1 then.
>inb4oreo
the proletariatss vcote hard.
wimatouvhoffeggwhiskclass

>>19480563
W-what

>>19480514
there's no magical mechanism or a formula that can prevent proletarian organs from degeneration. if what used to be a leading proletarian organ starts representing bourgeois interests and the class is not strong enough to develop new organs for itself then it simply means that it has lost the fight for a time being. so overall this would be like asking for a magical formula to prevent the possibility of defeats.
the question who is going to lead is going to be decided by who proves to be best suited for leadership to the workers so that they follow them. and they can only prove that by giving answers that later turn out to be right, by contributing to making the movement stronger and by helping maintain its independence from the forces that work to undermine it.
>>19480518
no, to win in the real world you need to comprehend how it works and be armed with ways of solving the problems that you'll encounter during the struggle. by theoretical I don't mean philosophy and utopianism. Marxism overcomes those, that's precisely why it can serve as a real weapon.

>>19480584
>there's no magical mechanism or a formula that can prevent proletarian organs from degeneration
No there isn't. Which is why you will always have an elite which can abuse its subjects

>>19480584
Ok I totally dont see how what you said relates to my reply>>19480518

Do you know what theoretical means and do you know people intend to do marxism in real life

>>19474395
Because the modern social justice movement really started with the New Left, which, although arguably did derive a lot from Marx, is commonly criticized by Marxists and critical theorists, such as Nancy Fraser, for instance; for having been directly responsible for financialized capitalism(to use her language)/neoliberalism/globalized post-liberal capitalism(To use Postone's verbiage). The enemy isn't marxism, it's liberalism, and this is an important point because, to borrow from Schmitt, knowing your enemy is the most important thing of all. To illustrate not knowing your enemy, Peterson continues to buy into "muh classical liberalism," he is at best a dead end, at worst an enemy. This is the correct answer and the fact that no one has given it yet, shows how thoroughly this board is infested with pseuds.

This usage originates with Pat Buchanan, who is neither a scholar nor a historian.

It is a convenient phrase in some circles because it reduces two unrelated fields (Communism and the sexual revolution) into a singular instance (Marxism that can be either economic or cultural).

It fails for several reasons. Firstly, the sexual revolution is a consequence of global capitalism (hence why you find it in post-war America and not Soviet Russia or Maoist China). Second, Marxism is a theory of capitalism and ideology, not a political program designed to obtain equality of outcome in an unrestricted sense.

Even the slightest comprehension or familiarity with Marxism would very quickly illustrate that Marxism has no normative designs in "cultural" outcomes. It is descriptive, nor prescriptive. Finally the word Mr. Buchanan should have used is "social."

>>19480613
Anon the internal bickering of the left does not take away anything from what cultural marxism is, which is a state of conditioning the masses to perform in an optimal marxist style. Which would almost certainly translate to quite different behavior than other systems. Liberalism is a different thing and has its own terms. One thing to note is during certain power phases, these two groups benefit one another. Such as now.

>>19480630
Seems quite tactical for the marxist academics to deny any sort of professional application of their rhetoric while leaders worldwide do the opposite. You are evil.

>>19480632

>Anon the internal bickering of the left does not take away anything from what cultural marxism is

Cool, except there is no such thing as cultural marxist. What you're seeing today is just the logical conclusion of liberalism.

> a state of conditioning the masses to perform in an optimal marxist style

Right except that's not happening.

> Liberalism is a different thing and has its own terms.

Yes... that's what I said. The marxist left is separate from liberalism. To the extent that Marxists buy into liberal language of respect and the individual(which, for instance, MacIntyre has argued Marx himself did, but that's a separate conversation), that's only further proof that Marxism is not a threat, it's been integrated into liberalism.

> these two groups benefit one another

How? What has the left gotten? Mogged by the literal zombie in the white house is what. The infrastructure bill was absolutely gutted, the post capitalist era that covid was supposed to bring about turned out to only be the further oligarchizing of the West.

>>19480672
Anon I will define cultural marxism for you so you never feel able to deny it ever again. Cultural marxism is the curation of optimal group behavior for marxist society. This ebbs and flows with time, as the proletariat and borgeois does as well.

With the current culture, leftism finds itself aligned with marxism in terms of collateral benefit from the reshuffling of society.

>>19480691
How about you start by defining what Marxism is, because it's pretty obvious you're a tard parade who's never actually read Marx, but feels quite ready to pontificate.

>>19480702
Amazing. Workers of the world, unite!

>>19480702
Is it fair to say that all of this woke stuff and BLM etc is a smokescreen for the banks?

>>19480719
Probably, but smokescreen implies cynicism, whereas I think they're genuine believers in the synagogue of satan that is liberalism.

>>19480704

Buddy, I'm literally a borderline fascist, I have no commitments to the Marxist project. I still know what I'm talking about though, which you clearly don't, faggot.

Actual Cultural Marxism is when you have yearly parades for Stalin, outlaw homosexuality, and build nuclear power plants for the glory of the Soviet state, it's not when you have 500k abortions every quarter, promote globohomo and international capitalism.

TL;DR Right-wingers are retarded.

>>19480732
Anon what do you think I don't understand? I will explain further. What I can see right now, is you insulting me because you have no argument. I don't care what you believe. My argument is rock hard. You will accept it.

>>19480732
i think they are using these activist useful idiots to create a precedent of censorship and ''unpersoning''. these activists think they will be the only ones left with a voice, and when the banks see them as a threat, they will be silenced, and it would have been via a precedent that they themselves helped create.

the last ones lined up a against the wall, so to speak.