Is cultural Marxism even Marxism at all?

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,741
Europix
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.
But we can't take it un-literary, Rodger. A pure Marxist state, a communist state can have the highest tax rate at 5%. Will we say it's "further" of marxism than US ?!?

What i'm saying is that marxism isn't caracterised by tax rate, not even by the percentage of tax rate. Tax remains, in a form or another, a redistribution. And taxes as redistribution exists in ultra-liberal societies, as in conseravtive, communist, aso.

I'm also saying that IMHO, when we're positioned at center/right, all too often wz qualify what we dissagree with as "Marxist", as if we're at center/left, we all too often qualify what we dissagree with as "Fascist."

It's useless, not towards marxism/fascism, but mainly towards ourselves. We're passing near the truth, and we're not even realising that we missed it.

_______

P.S. I'll come back for Lukàcs
 
Likes: Rodger
Jun 2016
1,587
England, 200 yards from Wales
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.
That's I suppose another case like those I mentioned. Is it worth paying taxes (local ones probably in that case) to have the service? We live in a pretty rural area too (the only neighbour within half a mile is a farm), but have separate rubbish and recycling collections.
As you say, things are blurred - tax levels and public services, what private activities affect others enough to be controlled etc. But if it's a matter of a point on that blurred range, but not full public ownership, then is Marxist an appropriate term, even if it's further along the scale than the speaker likes?
 
Likes: Rodger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,243
US
But we can't take it un-literary, Rodger. A pure Marxist state, a communist state can have the highest tax rate at 5%. Will we say it's "further" of marxism than US ?!?

What i'm saying is that marxism isn't caracterised by tax rate, not even by the percentage of tax rate. Tax remains, in a form or another, a redistribution. And taxes as redistribution exists in ultra-liberal societies, as in conseravtive, communist, aso.

I'm also saying that IMHO, when we're positioned at center/right, all too often wz qualify what we dissagree with as "Marxist", as if we're at center/left, we all too often qualify what we dissagree with as "Fascist."

It's useless, not towards marxism/fascism, but mainly towards ourselves. We're passing near the truth, and we're not even realising that we missed it.

_______

P.S. I'll come back for Lukàcs
That's I suppose another case like those I mentioned. Is it worth paying taxes (local ones probably in that case) to have the service? We live in a pretty rural area too (the only neighbour within half a mile is a farm), but have separate rubbish and recycling collections.
As you say, things are blurred - tax levels and public services, what private activities affect others enough to be controlled etc. But if it's a matter of a point on that blurred range, but not full public ownership, then is Marxist an appropriate term, even if it's further along the scale than the speaker likes?
I appreciate both of your replies. And I believe I can answer both by saying that I am speaking of a continuum or spectrum. It is going to be fluid, as societies are. Marxism may not be the most accurate word. Then again, even educated people are limited by language. There are only so many descriptors of which to describe places on the the continuum. I am addressing fluid movement towards one pole or another, not in absolute, static terms. And as I have tried to demonstrate, these fluid movements are not typically sudden or drastic, except but for a few (like the Russian Revolution; even then, a subsequent struggle took place for years to finally determine things). No, it is gradual, perhaps more gradual than some would like. But it can be incremental. That is how I see the efforts of the SJW upon culture. To slowly turn people's perceptions to the acceptance of things. I don't know how things happen in places like the U.K. or Germany, but in the U.S. the efforts are methodical and constant. The use of media is most effective. I am old enough to remember a time when many things that are acceptable today simply weren't. Things like politically correct language or views on one's work ethic, marriage, child rearing, even child bearing, etc. The list could go on.
 
Jun 2016
1,587
England, 200 yards from Wales
I appreciate both of your replies. And I believe I can answer both by saying that I am speaking of a continuum or spectrum. It is going to be fluid, as societies are. Marxism may not be the most accurate word. Then again, even educated people are limited by language. There are only so many descriptors of which to describe places on the the continuum. I am addressing fluid movement towards one pole or another, not in absolute, static terms. And as I have tried to demonstrate, these fluid movements are not typically sudden or drastic, except but for a few (like the Russian Revolution; even then, a subsequent struggle took place for years to finally determine things). No, it is gradual, perhaps more gradual than some would like. But it can be incremental. That is how I see the efforts of the SJW upon culture. To slowly turn people's perceptions to the acceptance of things. I don't know how things happen in places like the U.K. or Germany, but in the U.S. the efforts are methodical and constant. The use of media is most effective. I am old enough to remember a time when many things that are acceptable today simply weren't. Things like politically correct language or views on one's work ethic, marriage, child rearing, even child bearing, etc. The list could go on.
I can remember a time when things that are not acceptable today were - discrimination against coloured people in renting a flat or getting a job, women paid less for the same work as men, gay people at the risk of arrest just for being what they were, so-called comedians making unfunny and insulting 'jokes' about almost any group of people who weren't just like them, views on marriage (mixed race, same sex?), child rearing (corporal punishment). A lot of people campaigned (methodically and constantly) to change those things, if they were SJW's then maybe it's not such a bad thing to be.
Yes, it's a continuum, you may think the extreme end of that continuum is 'Marxism', but that doesn't mean everyone who wants to make a bit more progress along it is heading that far.
 

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,624
Sector N after curfew
This thread has moved along considerably since I last checked in only a couple of days ago! I've read every post in the ensuing 11 pages, and some progress seems to have been made, minimal though it may be. I'll respond to the most recent post addressed to me.

I would imagine the concept that binds is the idea of redistribution, be it financial resources, property or other resources.
Noting that you've failed to address most of the questions in my post, the answers to which would have helped provide clarity in our discussion, I'll carry on nonetheless.

The problem with your formulation above is that it doesn't address many of the causes that have been dismissed and denigrated as manifestations of Cultural Marxism. For instance, how does advocating for the right of gay people to marry tie into your proposed binding concept? How does zealously denouncing racism fit in? How is the recent (MeToo) movement in which women's accusations of sexual misconduct are being seriously considered a manifestation of redistributive Cultural Marxism? I don't think any of them do, and this points to the problematic nature of the term.

I believe I mentioned something like this in a previous post. One more thought: if culture and society can evolve, then so can streams of thought. I can't draw a definitive connection from SJW to the Frankfurt School.
Despite this, it appears you remain convinced that Cultural Marxism is a genuine phenomenon. On the other hand, if no rational basis can be presented for its use, perhaps it's just a convenient buzz-word with no actual substance. As has been pointed out by deaf tuner, William Lind (the person who coined the term) was dishonest in his exposition. In fact he was comprehensively dishonest, as this detailed examination of his screed shows: "Debunking William S. Lind & 'Cultural Marxism'" | Red Phoenix

As for the Frankfurt School, it was indeed amorphous and the various sometimes contradictory ideas put forward by its members cannot be boiled down to a simple synopsis, William Lind's blather notwithstanding. See "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory" | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Then again, I have read posts by others who argue there is no connection between what Karl Marx proposed and most communist movements. Furthermore, I did read about the Frankfurt School, and frankly, from what I read, there was no unifying theme or idea. So, it appears the movement was quite fluid, fluid enough to transform into my point of view.
Do you yourself believe that there is no connection between Marx's writing and most communist movements? You've struggled to articulate your point of view in regards to the validity of the term. I think the possibility that it's nothing more than an essentially unfounded and incoherent rhetorical brickbat deserves serious consideration.

My point is, I don't believe we need to be so rigid, as to try to make the connection bewteen the Frankfurt School and today's SJWs to argue that the latter is a form of cultural marxism, which is, for me, the redistribution of resources (money, land, services, products systems - such as education, legal, government, media and even religious organizations). Do you (or any other poster) believe that the proponents of the Frankfurt School would be dissatisfied with the rapid and radical deconstruction of American and British society through leftist ideas since the 1960s? Would they not embrace this?
So when the laws in the US were changed to desegregate schools, that would be "Cultural Marxism" in your opinion? When the law in the US was changed so that the government was required to provide public defenders for those who could not afford an attorney, that was "Cultural Marxism"? When laws in the US are changed to provide vouchers for parents to send their children to private/religious schools, that's "Cultural Marxism" too? Note that these are all "redistributive" in intent and effect.

I don't agree that there has been a "radical deconstruction of American and British society." Some things have changed, yes, and it's been a mixed bag, but changes that result in less systematic racism, less persecution of gay people, and more equitable access to legal resources (to cite three changes that somebody like William Lind would perhaps group under "Cultural Marxism") aren't deconstructing any society. As I pointed out much earlier, the character of society in western cultures ceased to be static long ago.

Cite just about any societal development in the past centuries and you will find somebody bemoaning it, even claiming that it will result in the downfall of civilization. Those predictions have failed to come true. The essential values remain; I would argue that pretty much all of the movements that people disparage as "Cultural Marxism" are in fact expressions of those values. It's when the benefits of those values are applied to groups that have previously been excluded that we hear cries of "Cultural Marxism!"

I think that some of the Frankfurt School thinkers would applaud many of the changes that have occurred, while others would be dismayed by those same changes. The false characterization of these thinkers by William Lind fails to take into account the fact that their ideas were by no means a monolithic whole.

One further note:

Wait now. If you "don't exactly know" what Frankfurt School stood for, then how can you tell me that my comments are wrong?:confused: I never intended to limit my comments to the Frankfurt School. A poster mentioned that the term "cultural marxist" was coined by them.
It may be that you're referring to me here. However, I did not make that claim. As I indirectly noted previously, the term is generally acknowledged to have been coined by William Lind, referring to the supposedly pernicious effect of Frankfurt School thinkers on American culture.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion of the term, Rodger. It's likely that there are other members of this site that happily use it, but who aren't up to considering its validity. The fact that you are at least willing to discuss it speaks well of your intellectual honesty, even if you remain unconvinced of its irrelevance.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,243
US
This thread has moved along considerably since I last checked in only a couple of days ago! I've read every post in the ensuing 11 pages, and some progress seems to have been made, minimal though it may be. I'll respond to the most recent post addressed to me.



Noting that you've failed to address most of the questions in my post, the answers to which would have helped provide clarity in our discussion, I'll carry on nonetheless.

The problem with your formulation above is that it doesn't address many of the causes that have been dismissed and denigrated as manifestations of Cultural Marxism. For instance, how does advocating for the right of gay people to marry tie into your proposed binding concept? How does zealously denouncing racism fit in? How is the recent (MeToo) movement in which women's accusations of sexual misconduct are being seriously considered a manifestation of redistributive Cultural Marxism? I don't think any of them do, and this points to the problematic nature of the term.



Despite this, it appears you remain convinced that Cultural Marxism is a genuine phenomenon. On the other hand, if no rational basis can be presented for its use, perhaps it's just a convenient buzz-word with no actual substance. As has been pointed out by deaf tuner, William Lind (the person who coined the term) was dishonest in his exposition. In fact he was comprehensively dishonest, as this detailed examination of his screed shows: "Debunking William S. Lind & 'Cultural Marxism'" | Red Phoenix

As for the Frankfurt School, it was indeed amorphous and the various sometimes contradictory ideas put forward by its members cannot be boiled down to a simple synopsis, William Lind's blather notwithstanding. See "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory" | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy



Do you yourself believe that there is no connection between Marx's writing and most communist movements? You've struggled to articulate your point of view in regards to the validity of the term. I think the possibility that it's nothing more than an essentially unfounded and incoherent rhetorical brickbat deserves serious consideration.



So when the laws in the US were changed to desegregate schools, that would be "Cultural Marxism" in your opinion? When the law in the US was changed so that the government was required to provide public defenders for those who could not afford an attorney, that was "Cultural Marxism"? When laws in the US are changed to provide vouchers for parents to send their children to private/religious schools, that's "Cultural Marxism" too? Note that these are all "redistributive" in intent and effect.

I don't agree that there has been a "radical deconstruction of American and British society." Some things have changed, yes, and it's been a mixed bag, but changes that result in less systematic racism, less persecution of gay people, and more equitable access to legal resources (to cite three changes that somebody like William Lind would perhaps group under "Cultural Marxism") aren't deconstructing any society. As I pointed out much earlier, the character of society in western cultures ceased to be static long ago.

Cite just about any societal development in the past centuries and you will find somebody bemoaning it, even claiming that it will result in the downfall of civilization. Those predictions have failed to come true. The essential values remain; I would argue that pretty much all of the movements that people disparage as "Cultural Marxism" are in fact expressions of those values. It's when the benefits of those values are applied to groups that have previously been excluded that we hear cries of "Cultural Marxism!"

I think that some of the Frankfurt School thinkers would applaud many of the changes that have occurred, while others would be dismayed by those same changes. The false characterization of these thinkers by William Lind fails to take into account the fact that their ideas were by no means a monolithic whole.

One further note:



It may be that you're referring to me here. However, I did not make that claim. As I indirectly noted previously, the term is generally acknowledged to have been coined by William Lind, referring to the supposedly pernicious effect of Frankfurt School thinkers on American culture.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion of the term, Rodger. It's likely that there are other members of this site that happily use it, but who aren't up to considering its validity. The fact that you are at least willing to discuss it speaks well of your intellectual honesty, even if you remain unconvinced of its irrelevance.
I was actually referring to Deaf Tuner when I stated how can you say I am wrong, if you don't know what their philosophy was? At any rate, some of the pints you bring up have been resolved to some degree. The problem may be that the term "cultural marxist" was hijacked here in the U.S. to mean something differently than what the Frankfurt School intended, although I have yet to see a concise, or even a general, description of what that is. You provided a link and I will eventually read that. But, I would appreciate if someone here, who is opposing my position could explain in his/her own words what the School advocated. Deaf Tuner mention Gregory Lukacs and I read up on his life. Yes, he was a marxist, considered the by many to be "the preeminent Marxist intellectual of the Stalinist era" according to this Wikipedia article: György Lukács - Wikipedia
Furthermore, that article states he helped formulate Western Marxism: Western Marxism - Wikipedia
And, please, note that the Wikipedia article on Western Marxism states that, "Since the 1960s, the concept has been closely associated with the New Left. "
Here is the Wikipedia article on the New Left: New Left - Wikipedia
From the article on the New Left we read, "The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms. " These are things you mentioned. All all of them wrong? No. Have things gotten to the point of a militant type of confrontation with the traditional culture? You and others be the judge.. Of course we cannot discuss current politics, but I am sure you and others are familiar with the current situation. One more thing I will add. Sometime in the dialectical struggle, as some like to call it, polemics are formed and lines are harden, almost like a literal battle. While there was the subjugation of certain people's rights in the past in the U.S., and that was wrong, I have encountered militant leftists who basically wish to turn the tables: the oppressed becomes the oppressor, what we saw in place like the USSR in my opinion. I will give you an example. Years ago (1980s) I was at the university. A person who became my best friend was a cheerful fellow for several years. Eventually, he disclosed he was gay. No big deal to me. Then, our relationship started to turn sour. He began to become very antagonistic and argumentative. He was angry. In his words he said, "You people who are straight can hold hands and kiss and public, but I can't." He literally grew hatred for heterosexuals - me included, an ironic twist coming from one that had been oppressed himself. In recent years, here in the U.S., I have seen others push vitriol from the left as much as some do from the right. Alas, I will leave it at that, given the rules of current politics. Maybe Marx was right? Only a dialectical struggle, us or them, will work? I would like to think differently.
 

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,624
Sector N after curfew
The problem may be that the term "cultural marxist" was hijacked here in the U.S. to mean something differently than what the Frankfurt School intended, although I have yet to see a concise, or even a general, description of what that is.
Once again, the term "Cultural Marxism" does not originate with the Frankfurt School. On the second page of this thread I linked to a source which made it clear that it was a conspiracy theory invention of William Lind, an extreme right-wing Christian propagandist. Lind in his writings and speaking engagements (including when he spoke at the Holocaust denial conference) repeatedly emphasizes that not only were the Frankfurt School Marxist, they were "also, to a man, Jewish." You can take from that what you will, but to me it doesn't speak well for his motivations. What the Frankfurt School did or did not intend has practically nothing to do with the cartoon version of them invented by Lind.

Deaf Tuner mention Gregory Lukacs and I read up on his life. Yes, he was a marxist, considered the by many to be "the preeminent Marxist intellectual of the Stalinist era" according to this Wikipedia article: György Lukács - Wikipedia
Furthermore, that article states he helped formulate Western Marxism: Western Marxism - Wikipedia
And, please, note that the Wikipedia article on Western Marxism states that, "Since the 1960s, the concept has been closely associated with the New Left. "
Here is the Wikipedia article on the New Left: New Left - Wikipedia
From the article on the New Left we read, "The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms. " These are things you mentioned. All all of them wrong? No. Have things gotten to the point of a militant type of confrontation with the traditional culture? You and others be the judge.
Your own quote from the Wikipedia article describes the New Left as a "broad political movement," not a Marxist nor even socialist movement. Yes, unquestionably Marxists and socialists were part of the New Left, including some of the "deep thinkers" associated with that movement. However, it was not a Marxist movement--it was much broader than that. The various causes that the New Left championed had their origins in pre-existing pacifist movements and struggles for civil rights, not in Marxism. To point to Marxism as the driving force is to deny the historical reality of the movement. The Marxist Herbert Marcuse sitting in his ivory tower scribbling theories about alienation and capitalism did not bring about the New Left. It was nothing so simple, but a significant part of it was dissatisfaction with previous leftist thinking (including Marxism).

The diversity of sources and forms of resistance complicates attempts to identify shared features of the various currents [of the New Left], but among those most commonly cited are a libertarian and democratic impulse, an emphasis on cultural as well as political transformation, an extension of the traditional left’s focus on class struggle to acknowledge multiple forms and bases of oppression, including race and gender, and a rejection of bureaucracy and traditional forms of political organization in favour of direct action and participatory democracy. In theoretical terms, the New Left’s major contribution was to a process of revision and diversification within Marxism and related doctrines, especially with regard to concepts of class, agency, ideology, and culture.

[source]
Note that the Encyclopedia Brittanica article quoted above points to the New Left movement as producing a revision of Marxism, not the other way around.

Sometime in the dialectical struggle, as some like to call it, polemics are formed and lines are harden, almost like a literal battle. While there was the subjugation of certain people's rights in the past in the U.S., and that was wrong, I have encountered militant leftists who basically wish to turn the tables: the oppressed becomes the oppressor, what we saw in place like the USSR in my opinion. I will give you an example. Years ago (1980s) I was at the university. A person who became my best friend was a cheerful fellow for several years. Eventually, he disclosed he was gay. No big deal to me. Then, our relationship started to turn sour. He began to become very antagonistic and argumentative. He was angry. In his words he said, "You people who are straight can hold hands and kiss and public, but I can't." He literally grew hatred for heterosexuals - me included, an ironic twist coming from one that had been oppressed himself. In recent years, here in the U.S., I have seen others push vitriol from the left as much as some do from the right. Alas, I will leave it at that, given the rules of current politics. Maybe Marx was right? Only a dialectical struggle, us or them, will work? I would like to think differently.
I would not deny that there are unreasonable zealots on the left. Like any loudmouths they get more attention than they deserve. They furnish a convenient caricature with which to smear all on the left. However, their spittle-flecked and often incoherent rantings are practically never an accurate representation of the thoughts and beliefs of those they claim to speak for. In the same way, "Cultural Marxism" is a convenient but inaccurate and incoherent rhetorical cudgel. Continue to use it if you will, but in truth it says more about those who use it than it does about those to whom is supposedly refers.
 
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,243
US
Once again, the term "Cultural Marxism" does not originate with the Frankfurt School. On the second page of this thread I linked to a source which made it clear that it was a conspiracy theory invention of William Lind, an extreme right-wing Christian propagandist. Lind in his writings and speaking engagements (including when he spoke at the Holocaust denial conference) repeatedly emphasizes that not only were the Frankfurt School Marxist, they were "also, to a man, Jewish." You can take from that what you will, but to me it doesn't speak well for his motivations. What the Frankfurt School did or did not intend has practically nothing to do with the cartoon version of them invented by Lind.



Your own quote from the Wikipedia article describes the New Left as a "broad political movement," not a Marxist nor even socialist movement. Yes, unquestionably Marxists and socialists were part of the New Left, including some of the "deep thinkers" associated with that movement. However, it was not a Marxist movement--it was much broader than that. The various causes that the New Left championed had their origins in pre-existing pacifist movements and struggles for civil rights, not in Marxism. To point to Marxism as the driving force is to deny the historical reality of the movement. The Marxist Herbert Marcuse sitting in his ivory tower scribbling theories about alienation and capitalism did not bring about the New Left. It was nothing so simple, but a significant part of it was dissatisfaction with previous leftist thinking (including Marxism).



Note that the Encyclopedia Brittanica article quoted above points to the New Left movement as producing a revision of Marxism, not the other way around.



I would not deny that there are unreasonable zealots on the left. Like any loudmouths they get more attention than they deserve. They furnish a convenient caricature with which to smear all on the left. However, their spittle-flecked and often incoherent rantings are practically never an accurate representation of the thoughts and beliefs of those they claim to speak for. In the same way, "Cultural Marxism" is a convenient but inaccurate and incoherent rhetorical cudgel. Continue to use it if you will, but in truth it says more about those who use it than it does about those to whom is supposedly refers.
Are you implying there is not a political element to Marxism? Or perhaps your are viewing it in a strict academic sense? If so, tell me where Marxism has been practiced in the purest sense? I am more concerned with practice than theory. With that said, the articles I provided clearly state that western marxism (which I understand originated from the Frankfurt School) is the daddy of the New left Movement that originated in the 1960s. That may make the New left Movement the bastard son of western Marxism, but it makes him his son, nonetheless. I have addressed this before: there is a fluidity to movements. And that fluid development is a legitimate development, open to critique. After all, I am attempting to address the OP of this thread. The same? No. A legitimate resemblance? There is a linear development and succession of things, just as Leninism was not a pure interpretation of Marxism but can well be considered a development of, and a succession from.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,966
Are you trying to imply there is not a political element to Marxism? Or perhaps your are viewing it in a strict academic sense. If so, tell me where Marxism has been practiced in the strictest sense? I am more concerned with practice than theory. With that said, the articles I provided clearly state that western marxism (which I understand originated from the Frankfurt School) is the daddy of the New left Movement that originated in the 1960s. That may make the New left Movement the bastard son of western Marxism, but it makes him his son, nonetheless. I have addressed this before: there is a fluidity to movements. It that fluid development is a legitimate development.
No your just wrong. The Left new or otherwise is not totally defined as Marxist. It;s never been a dominate factor in Leftist politics in the west, academic or otherwise,

The new Left was refutation of Marxist dogma that defined eberything by class,

"the Left" is a pretty diverse group. It;'s only crackpots who ting it;s all the Maxrists and the Furkfurt school. Atrildes that cliam this are so are idiotic,
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,243
US
No your just wrong. The Left new or otherwise is not totally defined as Marxist. It;s never been a dominate factor in Leftist politics in the west, academic or otherwise,

The new Left was refutation of Marxist dogma that defined eberything by class,

"the Left" is a pretty diverse group. It;'s only crackpots who ting it;s all the Maxrists and the Furkfurt school. Atrildes that cliam this are so are idiotic,
Yes, you are correct, the New Left did reject class division. And the article I supplied said that many in the New Left rejected the issue of workers' rights and struggles. So, to answer the OP: yes, cultural marxism is a fake marxism. Then, is western marxism a fake marxism? By the way, keep calling me a crackpot and idiot. You are so smug, yet still can't spell. Not using spell check could demonstrate that either you are lazy, or so irrational that you can't even be patient to check your replies, or maybe both. Am I irritating you?
 
Last edited: