Can we start a real life version of cultural Marxism?

Can we start a real life version of cultural Marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=shMdHHYpLpY
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sexual_Bolshevism
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm
bamidbar-journal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Introduction-prt.pdf
archive.is/w1Pz9
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I wish.

youtube.com/watch?v=shMdHHYpLpY

"Cultural Marxism", not the made up "Jewish conspiracy" attributed to socially liberal developments during the 20th century, "Cultural Marxism" as in making people more class conscious, does exist, however it's not that popular anymore and exerts next to no influence on modern politics

No, the super structure can't change the economic base

I wish Cultural Marxism was real tbh

Wouldn't it be so wonderful if we had a Marxist society?

The superstructure mantains the base

...

What ever is that?

the superstructure and the base shape and maintain each other in a dialectical relationship. this is literally marxism 101

It's called "Dialectical Materialism" not "Dialectical idealism" for a reason.

мы приходим к этой зубной щетки Бутько

Whether or not the SJW version of "cultural marxism" is a conspiracy or not, it has only served to draw attention away from class consciousness.

I know stormcucks love to assume we're on-board with idpol but it sure as hell does us no favours either.

...

They don't practice true critical theory though. They utilize a watered down version that is non-revolutionary.

It will always be "watered down", that is, neutered of revolutionary potential, then instrumentalized for the bourgeoisie, automatically. This simply is due to the way all power (including that of knowledge) flows to the top rather than the bottom.

What do you mean the SJW version? There's no such thing as cultural marxism

Fucking this. The base-superstructure dialectic is not a pinwheel.

question: why do you always put two spaces between sentences

So if you're implying if a copy of Capital and everything necessary to understand it, was somehow inserted into the mind of every proletariat today, the bourgeoisie would still be around tomorrow?

It depends on how they interpret it.
Not everyone who has reads capital agrees with it. The spectacle can adapt.

Empty gibberish. Leftists themselves are mostly parrots, despite what they think they believe. Proving my point.

Simply reading a book will not convince you to turn over your ideological convictions. Those who are incredulous will first turn to critiques of Capital, and parrot those.

Perfect example of the circularity of much of leftist thinking, because they fail to note their own position within the structure, thinking Marx just describes the right wing of society and not also the left, they just fantasize they are immunized from it, while each working to replicate it in their own dialectical way (by creating a tension of antagonism against the right which reciprocally defines itself in antagonism to the left and vice versa, creating the artificial "center")

Much of Capital is outdated, the first world proletariat is not going to read Part 7 of Capital and resonate with it. Keep in mind, they're also going to have a retrospective of 20th century communism.

In this thought experiment, they haven't merely been sat down and made to read it, the book is directly implanted into their minds, along with whatever else is necessary to understand it, as a 21st century scholar does, (as obviously I have no framework other than this to interpret it.) You are finding flaws in a hypothetical that was not presented.

So what do these materials look like?. Today, "scholars" of Marx don't even agree on what Marx meant in the first 5 Chapters of Capital. I'd be terrified to implant all the commentaries on Capital that a modern scholar would use (especially if we're including recent ones) because I'm guessing the more politically "enlightened" proles will just walk away thinking it's a piece of work that's self contradictory and inapplicable to modern Capitalism. Do I believe that class consciousness would be more widespread? Yes, much more. But But there hasn't been quality economic, Marxist analysis for the past 40 years and I blame that on a castrated left.

Let's do sexual bolshevism instead. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sexual_Bolshevism

So you not only identify with the intelligentsia, but you are even more discerning than the culmination of the prior 40 years of the top tier scholarship on the class structure of society. How again, is this not proof positive that the majority of so-called leftists are class warriors of the intelligentsia, seeking to establish themselves as the guiding hand in the face of the perpetually catastrophically decaying and collapsing vision of capitalist they have been presented with? And little to do with the actual proletariat… Hence my point. What was the Communist revolutions? Just this. Marxism from above. Critical theory and mass psychology from the neoliberals, and so on. Thus the cultural Marxism "conspiracy theory" is, in the sense of MARXISM, true, just spontaneously.

Here is the demonstration of the circularity of your thought: The supposition that there is such a thing as class consciousness, and that perfect class consciousness would would lead to proletarian revolution, is given to you by your entire course of scholarly learning throughout your life. Yet when presented with the scenario of such a class consciousness as you yourself feel aware of arriving to the works, you put up barriers and make excuses, "the scholarship has been bad, I know more than all these neutered scholars". This is how the intelligentsia functions. It incorporates theory into its ideological background to maintain or advance its position, and because they are the gatekeepers and arbiters of knowledge, they also work to obscure this relationship: obscurantism, hyperspecialization, and the like.

aware of, arriving to the workers*

You said:
Which I was guessing, would include the various commentaries on "what Marx actually means", but forgive me for interpreting you in the way you indicated was appropriate.

I'm curious: what intellectualism is not bourgeoisie? In fact, Marx thought the petit-bourgeoise would be instrumental in the revolution because it's difficult to write theory while being slammed at a wage slave job. He partnered with Engels for gods sake. But, forgive me for advocating that Marxist should soundly reground themselves theoretically. I don't think I ever once mentioned academia except what you implied would be inserted into our fellow proletariats brains. If you meant "if the Proles conceived of class exactly as Marx did", then you should've said though. But this is hardly the same as proles analyzing the book, comprehending it to as great an extent as possible, and then reaching their own conclusion. You can't have a revolution without revolutionary theory.


I don't know more, in fact I struggle with the finer points of value theory. What I specifically am referring to, is the empirical research conducted by the likes of Andrew Kliman, Michael Roberts &c, that doesn't account for the fact that prices do not behave remotely the same under fiat currency as under commodity money, then go on to "calculate the rate of profit in a Marxist way", and then wave the falling rate of profit around like its a confirmation of Marx's theories when it isn't.

I am against private property, wage labour, commodity production and the division of labour for philosophical reasons. I resonate with the more "humanist" aspects of Marx just as much as I do with the hardcore materialism.

Anyway, I don't believe the proles can ever "reach class conscious". In fact, I don't believe we will ever see socialism until labour is automated to such an extent that Capitalism can't continue on.

oh boi

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm

Proletarian google-autodidact NEET's on image boards, but quasi-unironically. :^)

I didn't mean to assume the particulars of your own position, but it's the overall trend and I'm as absolutely certain of this as I could be about anything. It's not really necessary to use Marx to prove this, but it's a ready to hand framework for explicating these concepts. I sort of strip Marx down to the dialectical prime as much as possible, I agree the economic theory is heavily outdated, but the specifics are not really relevant.

...

I agree that a lot of the New-Left purveys a hollow shell of socialisms former self, the most striking example for me is Foucalt. I do like some of Adorno's stuff though.

Nope, he helps to understand the episteme, and soft power, which is what I'm talking about.

I know, that's why I'm subverting it through cyberbullying them and turning it into a proletarian vanguard.

Not my fault you're a moron.

I mean his rejection of historicism. I didn't mean that none of the cultural observations by Foucalt were relevant, but I mean the shift from "dialectical method" to structuralist and postmodern theory.

But then again, I should've just said "the most striking example is Derrida".

This is the kind of specialization I'm talking about, the taxonomic fragmentation. It's nonsensical, even from the framework of the dialectical method, to reject Foucault on these grounds.

There is nothing outside of the shitpost.

Read everything, make your own theory. Practice ruthless self-criticism. It's the only way.

If you like both Deridda and Foucalt who rejected Marxism, why are you complaining about the critical theorist critique of the "base/superstructure" theorem and diamat?

Because I try to think meta-theoretically or something. Diamat historicism is trash, pure mysticism, and nothing like working knowledge of base/superstructure. Foucault is an elaboration of this, whether he thought to reject it himself or not is irrelevant to me. It's only useful insofar as I can incorporate the parts that are useful into my own understanding, which is what everyone should do. Not think in terms of broad brush strokes of X schools rejecting Y movements and shit.

This is fair. It was hard for me to tell what you were getting at.

The mechanical voice is terrible but everything said in this vid is correct.

If you are too illiterate to read a something fluently just post whatever it is you were trying to convey in text form. Or, better yet, work on your diction.

Well, we could just take this term and redefine it like that.

Which is why Marx never wrote the manifesto (or anything for that matter) but just huddled up in his native Trier waiting for the proletariate to take over.

this is basically what the Frankfurt school was writing tomes and tomes about.

"Cultural Marxism" is cold war era meme drawing on the similar nazi concept of Kulturbolschewismus (which for them entailed modernism and popular culture).

In essence the Frankfurt Schoolers wrote the exact thing you are writing here: the (by their very nature proletarian) trade unions of teachers, journalists and other intellectual workers were supporting the rightwingers and the fascists in 1920s Germany. They wanted the Reich back because they could write well about the Reich only and the Weimar Republic had no use for this kind of bullshit. Now you, vulgar marxist (down with ableist insults!), are hurling the same abuse at the Frankfurt School itself. Next you will probably accuse Gramsci of being an organic bourgeois intellectual fighting for the hegemony of nationalist ideas. I am so glad we have the Read a Fucking Book as a flavour on this board!

Mate. This is inane.

As is this.
I'm getting really tired of postmodern apologism on here.

"Everyone has something of value to contribute, reading anyone has the potential to improve your theory"
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
This simply isn't the case. And even if it were, we're less concerned with how many times per day a broken clock is right than whether the goddamn thing can actually tell time and keep your appointments.
If a theory fails to reproduce the accurate historical predictions of Marxism, that doesn't reflect well upon its axioms,whether or not they imply some superficially profound-seeming fluff conclusion about how "power goes back and forth" which self-styled intellectuals feel compelled to incorporate for its own sake.
This self-indulgent "eclectic synthesis of diverse perspectives" nonsense reeks of petit-bourgeois status signaling. Postmodernism is fundamentally built on not a justified skepticism of "meta-narratives," meaning any rational attempt to make a science of history, but upon their categorical, a priori rejection - in a sense young earth creationism coming full circle.

He wrote the manifesto because someone asked him to.

I find the first part on Foucalt inadequate. He is begging the question by pointing out in Ptolemy's time it was true the sun revolved around the Earth, as if that somehow invalidates what Foucault is saying. The next part is astoundingly odd, he seems to imply that because Foucalt defined truth that way, that things can't *not be true* as per his definition. Analytics are a laugh.

Since that was trash, I don't think I'm going to read the rest of this.

No? It would be nice if you supported these claims, say, with text, so I could see your reasoning.

He shows that a defining attribute of Foucauldian truth is its lack of a certain property attributable to any pragmatic theory of truth, and therefore that the resultant concept is distinct from it, i.e. a distinct definition. Like how Ricardian-Marxian "value," which refers to socially necessary labor, is distinct from "use value" or utility, this is not a reformulation of pragmatic truth but an entirely separate concept which happens to share the label "truth." And, as with the LTV, problems emerge in an argument when one conflates or confuses the two. This is why Shackel calls it an arbitrary redefinition. "Arbitrary" captures precisely this meaning.

I don't think you've really grasped what a motte and bailey doctrine is. There's no real reason to choose the word "true," detached from its classical or pragmatic meaning, rather than another candidate phrase to label and refer back to "things which are socially manufactured." Other than, of course, obscurantism.

You can see in the paper how several passages from Foucault are reduced to the most banal triviality when you replace "true" with what he uses it to mean, and you can see how it requires a close reading to see which definition he is using at any given time, often at multiple points within the same sentence. I mean, Jesus. The profundity of his conclusions is entirely contingent on his not being closely read. The actual foundation, while rigorous, is designed to remain out of sight, ignored, and implicitly imagined to be something else until his work should come under critical scrutiny. It's intellectual dishonesty at its finest, and it forms the backbone of so many faulty SJW arguments.

Which, really, should come as no surprise because postmodernism is the intellectual/academic backbone to their activity.

Yes, and you're banking on others not reading either and assuming there's something to what you're saying.
It's true, in the Foucauldian sense, that you are a massive cunt.

Yes start making amusing comments about Porky to your friends and family, make media and social connections between Porky and the domination of resources we see in everyday life by porky. Make it a joke, make it light hearted, do it a lot and subtly. don't talk theory, don't mention any leftist idealouges, don't pearl clutch. do what Holla Forums has been doing slowly to the entire internet for years now. lefties are much more likely to have friends and social pull than right wingers thanks to higher emotional Autism Level in lefties. use this to your advantage. talk about how capitalism ruins everyones creativity and takes away all of our free time. joke about mega corps and tech companies seeping into every facet of life.

Philosophers who write metaphysics use their own lexicon all the time. I wouldn't call Foucalt's redefinition arbitrary. For example:

Foucalt is reiterating that how we generally classify T iff S, is not dependent on some inherent quality of S (for example: the socially manufactured belief the Earth revolves around the Sun), but rather the criterion for T iff S is determined by the Foucaldian definition (purely societal).

However at:
The author acts like Foucalt is contradicting himself by using both meanings. Of course, "truth isn't the reward of free spirits" - it's societal, and that ultimately decides whether "S" is T iff S or not.

That paragraph sticks to Foucalts definition 11 out of 14 times. Accusations that Foucalt is ditching his definition in favour of Tarski to appear more profound are not soundly grounded. But let's take a look at the parts he is only using truth in a way that is satisfiable by Tarski's.
"The mecanisms except this, and this becomes the truth" fits with Foucalt.

The mechanisms allow one to distinguish what is truth. Again, fits with Foucalt.

"The mechanisms decide what is truth". Again, all these fit with his central thesis that truth is socially manufactured.

But I've BTFO your smug ignorance on a couple threads already. You are smart and I like you tho. Hang around. Do not trip under any circumstances however.


DiaMat is insane and easily refutable. If you lurked more you'd see that.

Do I get to magically rebut this by calling out "not an argument" now? Is that how this works? Are we /Fully Automated Luxury Debate/?
Molymeme magic doesn't work on Holla Forums.
And you didn't make any in or besides

Done.

What are you on about now?

Color me surprised

...

You want to know what "cultural Marxism" is?

It's mysticism.

marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm

bamidbar-journal.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Introduction-prt.pdf

archive.is/w1Pz9

I'll repeat: it's LITERALLY mysticism.

Well they are shilling not for shekels but for the Importance and whip like potency of their own mind, which is the promise of diamat, a total framework which they can import into themselves, and then in which to into everything, to holistically organize society, culture, everything within it. It's ecstatic mysticism that constantly tells itself its "scientific" and "material". The material it is concerned with is an absolute abstraction however. It's an empty categorical grid onto which anything can, and was, superimposable, justifying anything with some constraints and caveats.

So we've both accused each other of being errant, self-absorbed pseudointellectuals, now.
If the cast-off point for your theory is the redefinition of "truth" as "socially manufactured things," then everything is an absolute abstraction and this is but another truism. It is, again, blunt, reductive, and imprecise. And I don't know why you should feel the need to dispute its "scientific" nature, when this is the very same criticism you lodge against physical science itself, again highlighting the evident break with "pragmatic" truth.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/
So your argument is that dialectical materialism inordinately lends itself to the use of ad hoc hypotheses in its interpretation and application?
This is a fair complaint, and one we get often enough in rudimentary forms from Holla Forums. But one must be principled enough to attempt to distinguish between what of this is a defect of the theory itself, and what of it is a defect of the individual, i.e. what we might call "undisciplined reading." For instance, while Trotsky submitted The Revolution Betrayed before the Moscow Trials began and Permanent Revolution seven years prior, correctly predicting the fate of the USSR and postcolonial third world, and, with a strong claim to Marxist orthodoxy, articulating a major part of the theory which early Bolshevism was in every important sense based upon – and while other Marxists opposed the Bolsheviks upon other theoretical grounds – the writers of the Frankfurt School were more or less taken along for the ride up until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Obama Liberal style, suggesting a difference in the extent of this theoretical weakness. Indeed, their response was to rip at the very philosophical foundations of Marxism, as yours appears to be.
One might very well object, "in what sense is a theory 'desirable' if its correct implementation is contingent upon personal discipline, skill and understanding?" In what sense indeed! Just like the "totalizing model" objection which may be levied against all manner of things, including the physical science underpinning modern civilization, this may be made trivially against any position. Is one unsound to depend upon people understanding car mechanics, for when cars "break down"? Or on consumers understanding how to use their smartphone OS?
Similarly, one must necessarily compare these alleged defects of dialectical materialism to those of other theories in order to judge whether it has any "inordinate" problems dependent on the theory itself, beyond those of "all meta-narratives" – rejecting it while holding the contrary being, ironically, an equally "totalizing" view.
You seem on the verge of denouncing the entire leftist emancipatory project, while wrapping yourself in the flag and claiming Holla Forums's consensus is with you
I hope, if you call me an "intellectual shill," I will not be remiss in calling you COINTELPRO.

Good substantive post. I'll reply to your points shortly, but will also elaborate my own point as I was more memeing before.

My contention is that I see no relation between simply having a critical view of capitalism and having to launch oneself into these ridiculous, unmotivated metaphysical dogmatic subbranches. What the fuck for? I distrust anyone who says "no don't think for yourself, don't read widely", in any form or guise. I see myself as a COINTELPRO in reverse, trying to rescue the left from its anachronistic, ridiculous and redundant sects and chauvinism of the intellect. Which of course, was an overarching aim of psychological counterintelligence. So I could more accurately proclaim you were an artifact of such programs (and, of course, the KGB's active measures), possibly without even realizing it. The structure of the intelligentsia under capitalism is part of its mechanism of self-replication, the outward claims of ideologues mean less to me than what drives ideology itself, as their claims and their actions rarely align in any coherent fashion. Identifying yourself with the "emancipatory project" to the exclusion of anti-dogmatists reveals something to me about your character and motivations, possibly outside of the realm of your current ability to interrogate them yourself. That's one of the benefits of reading widely and practicing self-criticism. The real motivations underlying the exoteric belief systems become clearer.

Thank you, my right honorable colleague.
I certainly wouldn't bill myself as against reading widely or pro-dogmatism. I've read a lot of pro-market, right-libertarian works, and reactionary/"alt-right" material and feel I have grown quite a bit from it. I just can't abide, though, a categorical denunciation of my own worldview as "following canned instructions," especially when formulated through a canned argument, I hope you understand. Hence my emphasis on the matter of effective or "correct" interpretation.
I do believe that metaphysical relativism and the politics of identity have played a key role in suppressing workers' struggles, and find myself generally opposed to what doesn't make a great effort to be scientific and historically predictive. But perhaps we can cut some common ground.

Not him, but can you recommend libertarian/reactionary literature?

I'm certainly no strong social constructivist, Lyo-tard, nor am I some naive, fedora tipping positivist. Both are as limited and ridiculous as eachother, as a total viewpoint, but in a sense I am glad they exist, I am more of a perspectivalist. I do have a theory of fundamental truth but it is vastly more detailed than I am willing to narrow down into shitposts (for now…).

I disagree with totalization as being trivially leveragable. Its more to do with internal circularity, an inbuilt inescapable trap, similarly to how cognitive dissonance functions psychologically. We are in the realm of deep questions of fundamental truth and I'm not really willing to get into it as such right now, but I can assure you that what you assume to be my position as above is incorrect. Simply because I have incorporated some insights from Adorno, Foucault, even Derrida, into my own doesn't mean I am some full blown bohemian French dandy, far from it, I have my own detailed criticisms of all of these "schools" as schools. I do think you have made a false equivalence between DiaMat and physical science, let alone specific technical/mechanical knowledge. DiaMat as a Weltanschauung I see as dogmatically metaphysical in a dangerous way, because of its organicism among other things. I believe you falsely equivocate between Soviet style DiaMat and all Marxism, I obviously hold to some version of base/superstructure, but the hero worship of Marx as if he was an irruption of preternatural genius that solved all problems if you only have the correct exegesis of him is pure religion. Also, you reject scientism yet seem to talk about the predictive value of, at least, Trotsky's thread of analysis, which implies you think it could be falsified as well. So which is it?


Nick Land. :^)

I haven't been here since october so I'll just presume you BTFO'd the smug ignorance of another German.
Attacking marxist academics for being academics is just about as silly as attacking Zhukov or Kotovskiy for having been armymen (while calling the army by itself somehow 'bourgeois').

t. Academic