What makes fascism a more valid category than cultural marxism?

What makes fascism a more valid category than cultural marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:


This question made zero sense, but if you want to know more about the concept of cultural Marxism start by reading PDF related, which is a short and concise, fully sourced summary of the meme.

I remember that article, it begs the question and walks around the bush. "What is called cultural marxism is real, but to call it cultural marxism is conspiracy theory". It rests upon the sentiment that his language game is violated, nothing more.

People exist who actually call themselves "fascists."


Interactionist here

These things do not compute unless you want me to choose only one, because the article carefully points out that all that demagogues call "cultural Marxism" is in fact entirely divorced from Marxist principles, so far in fact that it abandons even the basics of Marxism: a material-discursive method of analysis.

What happens here is that your post and beliefs on the subject rest upon the violation of your feefees through an inability to properly make a conspiracy theory reality.

To address your question in the OP as I might interpret it: calling fascism fascism is categorically not hard because it has a concise following that fully assumes the term as self-descriptor, while you'll be hard-pressed to find someone espousing the term cultural Maxism to describe themselves, much less even know the term or its conspiratory implications, let alone have a profile that matches its definition.

This is not to say that the term ("fascism", or even "fascist" and "Nazi") aren't widely overused term in the ranks of the liberal left's commentators to basically describe any instance of right-populist sentiments rising or taking root, but the term has a proper definition, a history of self-creation by its adherents and an ontologically complete position as both a deviation of nationalist syndicalism in the working class, as well as a bourgeois appropriation of working class sentiments to merge state and enterprise.

Unlike another idiot in the thread, I do so while actually saging and being constructive, my dude.

One exists, the other doesn't

It doesn't point out anything, it works from the assumption that everything is actually capitalism and that cultural marxism is therefor capitalism too. It gives a few examples to support this such as Edward Bernays, that have nothing to do with cultural marxism, ignoring that marxists are the staunched supports of cultural marxism and that it can be traced directly to marxist ideologues. When corporations are ideologically strong armed into supporting this, the article claims that it was a capitalist conspiracy all along to divide the working class and prevent communism. That constitutes begging the question, not evidence based argumentation, it doesn't refute, it doesn't explain, it merely states that cultural marxism doesn't fit into the conspirational narrative that constitutes marxism.


A more accurate right-wing analogue of 'cultural marxism' would be 'white supremacist' in that they are almost always used as pejorative terms and not self-describing. Terms one side labels the other and the receiving side scrambles to deny this label.

Cite yourself, you lazy faggot.

Bernays being the closest thing you could get to the concept of cultural Marxism: utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis and the pleasure principle and oedipal complex to alter the cultutral landscape of the consumer market.

Because, as we know, cultural Marxism is totally real and it is thus possible for a relation to exist amirite?

Ignoring that Marxists consistently oppose advocacy and support for predominantly sociocultural cultural change (because they're Marxists), and that none of them even know of the conspiracy theory or even its title, let alone have any patience who the post'68 left which explicitly separated itself from the Marxist tradition and marked the beginning of Marxism's waning influence in academic, theoretical and left wing discourse (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno#Confrontations_with_students).

Its complete opponents and deniers, actually; those who principally rejected Marxist principles from their theoretical roots and would outright call Marxism eurocentric and/or "colonial mentality" unironically (see: Edward Saïd).

See: when corporations like Ford themselves started suffrage on the workplace and inclusivity programs because it's fucking profitable and the academic discourse supported it since the late '60s when Marxism began to get dismissed for not being [current year] enough in the academic world.

You've gone full McCarthy, as is expected of someone unironically peddling a conspiracy theory.

We can tell you like tipping your fedora at inconveniences in the Real mismatching with your worldview and its conspiratory basis, dude; no need to fit the stereotype so perfectly.

If your next post isn't high energy, I'm afraid you'll have to investigate on how to read and inform all by yourself, no spoonfeeding to a wall from me anymore I'm afraid!

No, using boobs in advertisement isn't what is understood with cultural marxism.

The expansion of marxism wasn't a fall brought into it by others, nor is it so that the handful of disgruntled and despised marxists that hang around at the virtual gulag that is Holla Forums are the only True Marxists. The worldview of the entire world as oppressive conspiracy ruled by dichotomies of which all is but a holographic projection was present from the start, cultural marxism is it's logical consequence.

Much the same as above, marxist meta-criticism of itself isn't a break or a subversion brought in by bourjews.

It's not profitable at all, the diversity departments that handle cushy symbolic jobs to their kin form a protection racket, not an asset.

McCarthy said that marxists wanted a violent worldwide revolution that would overthrow the U.S, with marxists in America working towards this goal. Marxists say they same, but pretend otherwise when they find out people take them on their word instead of falling into liberal dindu apologism.

Lacan babble, another marxist fashion, unfalsfiable and therefor to be used at will to ram anything you want into your desired conclusion, a shame for the millions who had to suffer under those witch doctors.





Palm reading.

Please stop being such a clueless retard pol

Go be clinically retarded somewhere else

Go be a secular calvinist somewhere else, like reddit.

I Marcuse you of being a giant faggot

Impotence nothing: archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14647!

Can't be emphasized enough. Post-colonial theory replaced the waning Marxist academic theory in a swift blow after '68 and injected itself to be the hegemonic standard, later incorporating itself as the explcitly liberal-progressive sociology we know today: youtube.com/watch?v=T6Heu5TRDB8.

It actually produces wealth?



Womens suffrage.

The scientific principles of Stalinist dialectical cosmology of course.

in modern terms the difference would be ethnic hegemony, which is why the soviet union was so successful. But ey that's racis and bourgeois.

fascism actually is an ideology and doesn't just mean authoritarian

cultural marxism usually mean frankfort school, but what the people who use the term call cultural marxism wouldn't be approved of the "founders"