Is cultural Marxism even Marxism at all?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,357
US
You have made cliams which you have offered nothing at all to support,, vague statements which amount to nothing but assertion of crack pot conspiracy theories.

When are you going to actual mount an argument with evidence for you claims?

I'll gladly reposnd to something of substance but lacking any coherenat , reaosnaed and factually based claims from yourslef all I can do is piont out how thin and unbased on any factual contenet your crackpot climas are,
Why do you keep trolling if you have nothing to offer? You have posted the same comment, complete with plenty of misspelled words that make you post almost incomprehensible (7 this time; try spell check) how many times now? Do you just copy and paste?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,290
Why do you keep trolling if you have nothing to offer? You have posted the same comment, complete with plenty of misspelled words that make you post almost incomprehensible (7 this time; try spell check) how many times now? Do you just copy and paste?
Pot kettle black you have made a bunch of unfounded claims repeating ring wing nut job conspiracy theories. I'm not inclined to treat you with much respect.

You got somtehing to back opf your cliams and actually mopve the debate onto reasona nd facts, go ahead,. Whike you just throw about a cliched grab bag of right wing nut job conspiracy stuff without anything to back them up thats the sort of treatment it gets,
 
Jan 2015
5,368
Ontario, Canada
Sure, SJW "wants to abolish private property and redistribute wealth." That's one similarity. Do you find 320 genders and T-rex-copter in Marxism too?
Yeah, agree with this for the most part. A lot of the stuff we are seeing now was known to Marx, Lenin or Stalin etc. I really have no idea where the 36+ genders thing comes from in academia or what scholars were proponents of this.
 
Jun 2016
1,646
England, 200 yards from Wales
Sure, SJW "wants to abolish private property and redistribute wealth." That's one similarity. Do you find 320 genders and T-rex-copter in Marxism too?
Well, SJW is about as useless (and derogatory) a label as 'cultural marxism'.
Really there's even less link to Marx than you admit - after all many (probably most) people who want some sort of redistribution of wealth now are talking more about rather more progressive taxation than actually abolishing private property. As you say there's not a lot in Marx about gender issues, I don't recall but is there much about feminism, racism etc either? Current 'progressive' ideas have only limited links to Marx, and even fewer to the Frankfurt people.
I don't know what a T-rex-copter is either?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,357
US
Well, SJW is about as useless (and derogatory) a label as 'cultural marxism'.
Really there's even less link to Marx than you admit - after all many (probably most) people who want some sort of redistribution of wealth now are talking more about rather more progressive taxation than actually abolishing private property. As you say there's not a lot in Marx about gender issues, I don't recall but is there much about feminism, racism etc either? Current 'progressive' ideas have only limited links to Marx, and even fewer to the Frankfurt people.
I don't know what a T-rex-copter is either?
Isn't taking an exorbitant share of somebody's resources, i.e., their income, about as close to the marxist ideology as one can get? In some nations, like Sweden, it is coming close to 2/3 of their income: Sweden Personal Income Tax Rate | 2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
Even if the USSR and other communist nations, they often let the average farmer keep some of the crops from his plot: Agriculture in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

And if not taking private property, there are now severe restrictions in many places on what one can do with their property, making it not so private: Property Rights, Regulatory Takings, and Environmental Protection

One thing that bothers me is, evry time I wish to make any sort of change to my property, like put on a deck or build a detached garage, or anything that changes the facade, I have to get a "building permit," which of course, cost money. Technically, I can't make the changes without one.
 
Jun 2016
1,646
England, 200 yards from Wales
Isn't taking an exorbitant share of somebody's resources, i.e., their income, about as close to the marxist ideology as one can get? In some nations, like Sweden, it is coming close to 2/3 of their income: Sweden Personal Income Tax Rate | 2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
Even if the USSR and other communist nations, they often let the average farmer keep some of the crops from his plot: Agriculture in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

And if not taking private property, there are now severe restrictions in many places on what one can do with their property, making it not so private: Property Rights, Regulatory Takings, and Environmental Protection

One thing that bothers me is, evry time I wish to make any sort of change to my property, like put on a deck or build a detached garage, or anything that changes the facade, I have to get a "building permit," which of course, cost money. Technically, I can't make the changes without one.
Well, 'exorbitant' is a pretty subjective term, how much is exorbitant? One might consider it is worth paying enough tax to fund good public health, public schools etc as it may make more economic sense than paying less tax but having to pay for private health and schooling. Quite apart from wanting decent services that can't really be done privately, roads, police etc. The point is it is striking a balance, it's not a Marxist removal of private property.
Should there not be restrictions on private property, after all what one person does on or with their property can affect other people? Of course a particular restriction may seem (may be) unreasonable, but that doesn't affect the general principle - some regulation of private property in some areas is not total denial of it.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,357
US
Well, 'exorbitant' is a pretty subjective term, how much is exorbitant? One might consider it is worth paying enough tax to fund good public health, public schools etc as it may make more economic sense than paying less tax but having to pay for private health and schooling. Quite apart from wanting decent services that can't really be done privately, roads, police etc. The point is it is striking a balance, it's not a Marxist removal of private property.
Should there not be restrictions on private property, after all what one person does on or with their property can affect other people? Of course a particular restriction may seem (may be) unreasonable, but that doesn't affect the general principle - some regulation of private property in some areas is not total denial of it.
All my father ever wanted was to own a home with a little piece of land - enough for a garden, a dream he never realized. I think many who immigrated from Europe to the U.S. came for a similar dream, so I guess land ownership is (or at least was) a big deal here in the U.S. Certainly one's activities that harm others shouldn't be permitted. There is a common good. The line as to what is detrimental is blurred though, like many things in life. Out where I live, they are drilling for shale oil, a commodity that has lowered the price of fossil fuels like gas and oil, significantly, and hopefully will eliminate the U.S.'s need for foreign oil, something which has greatly affected the geo political environment. In the process, people who own a decent size piece of land, often impoverished rural folks, have made out well financially. Of course there is opposition to the fracking process by some. In some communities they have banned the process, thus affecting a property owner's ability to utilize their land for their benefit. Here is a more benign example: burning refuse. Again, in rural - or even suburban - areas, people will often burn their refuse. Where I live there is no scheduled refuse/garbage pick up. You must make your own arrangements. When my family first moved here, we burned what could be burned and recycled that which couldn't. That which could not be recycled by typical means was saved and then taken to a special dump where, for a price, they disposed of those items. Now, in many communities in rural areas (not densely populated cities) burning is banned. I long ago abandoned the practice once I had more disposable income to pay for refuse/garbage pick up, simply out of convenience. But there was a time that I could not afford $40/month for garbage pick up. While burning rubber tires or roof shingles is a hazard, I don't see burning paper as any more harmful than the trucks, buses and jets that release their emissions - or the electric power plants for that matter.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,149
Europix
Isn't taking an exorbitant share of somebody's resources, i.e., their income, about as close to the marxist ideology as one can get? In some nations, like Sweden, it is coming close to 2/3 of their income: Sweden Personal Income Tax Rate | 2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast
.... .
Principially speaking, there's no logic in that, Rodger: You cannot say "up to 63% taxes = liberalism, from 64% taxes = marxism".

Either taxation is "Marxism", either it isn't.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,357
US
Principially speaking, there's no logic in that, Rodger: You cannot say "up to 63% taxes = liberalism, from 64% taxes = marxism".

Either taxation is "Marxism", either it isn't.
I am not saying that. Please don't take things so literally, as to miss the message. Few things are "either, or." What I am saying is 63% is closer to 100% than to 0%. Therefore, progressivism or liberalism or socialism - in some forms- is closer to communism than anything else. It can be a stepping stone. And I would imagine there are some in Sweden, who if placed into power, would take more. Where I work, we need 24 hour coverage, 7 days a week. So, people can voluntarily be on call, to handle business. It is voluntary and they are compensated. We usually get annual raise to our wages, so the longer you are there, the more you make (no merit pay here). New workers often will take the on call to supplement their wages. However, almost to a person, once the net pay on those on call wages reaches about 60% (that is 40% is being deducted for taxes etc.) they quit being on call. As you might surmise, as a worker makes more income, they eventually move to the next tax bracket. I can't tell you how many times I have heard workers say, "It's not worth it." I view it as I made a few more dollars, even if nearly half is taken out (which where I am in the scheme of things). But, then I need the money. The point is, for almost everybody but the most desperate, there is point of diminishing returns, whereby the work is no longer worth the compensation and people will work less, as their leisure time ( or sanity or health or whatever else) is more valuable than the compensation they view as not enough for the work.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,357
US
I am not saying that. Please don't take things so literally, as to miss the message. Few things are "either, or." What I am saying is 63% is closer to 100% than to 0%. Therefore, progressivism or liberalism or socialism - in some forms- is closer to communism than anything else. It can be a stepping stone. And I would imagine there are some in Sweden, who if placed into power, would take more. Where I work, we need 24 hour coverage, 7 days a week. So, people can voluntarily be on call, to handle business. It is voluntary and they are compensated. We usually get annual raise to our wages, so the longer you are there, the more you make (no merit pay here). New workers often will take the on call to supplement their wages. However, almost to a person, once the net pay on those on call wages reaches about 60% (that is 40% is being deducted for taxes etc.) they quit being on call. As you might surmise, as a worker makes more income, they eventually move to the next tax bracket. I can't tell you how many times I have heard workers say, "It's not worth it." I view it as I made a few more dollars, even if nearly half is taken out (which where I am in the scheme of things). But, then I need the money. The point is, for almost everybody but the most desperate, there is point of diminishing returns, whereby the work is no longer worth the compensation and people will work less, as their leisure time ( or sanity or health or whatever else) is more valuable than the compensation they view as not enough for the work.
EDIT: So Deaf, you can't make out what Lukacs intended either?
 

Similar History Discussions