Why is Holla Forums always on about culture, and 'cultural Marxism'?
Culture is degenerating because we live in a system where a culture is required to produce capital to survive.
You cannot have both capitalism and culture at the same time.
Preservation and development of culture should be an argument FOR socialism.
Discuss.
You can, but capitalism chips away at genuine culture by replacing it with a commodified version of it, and practically eliminates folk culture.
If anyone has that great pic of the one dude going on about his family's lost tradition of musicians cuz of capitalism post it.
Communal folk culture was at it's height in the 1860's which is also about the time when capitalism was at it's height.
How can something inherently mutable and under constant change "degenerate"?
Because I don't like it anymore, duh.
The American capitalist massculture is slowly becoming the norm in the entire world.
In New York City, Berlin, Mumbai etc people dress like each other, act like each other, think like each other, listen to the same music, watch the same movies and so on. Of course not 100% the same but the basics are the same and it's becoming more and more like the US. Been going on since the 1950s.
Critical theorists were trying to warn us about late capitalism and the commodification of all forms of culture.
Culture under capitalism is the stereotypical pile of trash food restaurants you see getting off of the highway
...
The hegemonic culture it serve the purpose of the bourgeosie mantaining low the class consciousness of the ploretariat, spreading the moral value of the dominant class. The only true and genuine culture that could exist and must be created is a proletariat culture "nazional-popolare" as Gramsci called it.
Holla Forums really need to read Gramsci.
Culture is degenerating comrade, the commodification of every kind of art is in our time evident. This doesn't mean that out there there aren't very good artist but they are oppressed by our economical system as everyone else. the "culture culture costant change" meme is just an excuse to not face the actual decadence of european culture. As Lucacks said "A more advenced economical system doesn't always offer an improved kind of art" (i'm not literal quoting him because i've not read him in english, so i'm translating him at memory)
(sorry for my english)
I approach the subject through the lense of anthropology, and as such I define culture in the following way:
"Culture… taken in its broad, ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." - Edward B. Tylor
So, this being said, I definitely think that culture can exist under capitalism. However, under capitalism, culture is of course commodified and decadent.
"Cultural Marxism" Is a myth made up by the Nazis to help kill/remove their own people.
Anything that the state did not aprove was deamed "Degenerate" and "Cultural Marxist".
Anime, Porn, Music, Videogames, News. All these things and more are "Cultural Marxist" in the eyes of a Nazi. They will add more to the list IF they come to power.
The Nazis used the term "Cultural Bolshevism" but they rebranded it to "Cultural Marxism"
en.wikipedia.org
Also when Holla Forums says "Cultural Marxism" they think it means all cultures should be mixed together.
Witch has nothing to do with Marx at all…
I'll admit I haven't read my Gramsci, or my Lukács, or my Benjamin etc so maybe I should shut the fuck up, but the idea of a degeneration of art and culture, to me, implies there's a natural state they can be in, which I think it's Ideological since it presumes a superstructural entity is a fixed abstraction and not subjected to change.
When you're listening to Tool, just remember that they're not like other bands. Their music is incredibly artistic, almost to the point where you have to be paying complete attention to them to even remotely understand them. I remember listening to a song on Lateralus (though I can't remember what it was), where I thought a song was absolute bollocks during the listen. Then, I closed my eyes for a second, and all of a sudden the song had an entirely new meaning. It was insane the way Tool could just become something so different when you take a look into the music.
Another thing you should note about Tool is that it's easy to get a headache listening to them. Not because they're a bad band, but because of how many ideas their music is riddled with and how complex they are. Soon enough your head will fill to the brim and the rest will just sound like noise to you. Just turn it off and give it a listen the next day.
If you don't like the music, you'll definitely at least enjoy reading through the lyrics, and picking apart the song itself and all of the artistic values that go into making it the complexity that it is.
...
In this you're right there isn't a natural state of art, it can only progress, you can't regresse to a precedent form, because, as superstructure, it is bounded to the progress of the economical system. But progress doesn't mean improvement, massculture is artistically speaking the worst thing ever happened to humanity. In this context Gramsci's ideas came in, because he says that only a proletariat art can raise class consciousness and helping to form new kind of regional (contrappose to the global) and popular culture, that will oppose the bourgeoise one. Gramsci in his prison's notebooks observe what kind of books the italian proletariat read and starting by this he forms his theory.
what is wrong with folk music?
Are you saying that any artist in a capitalist society is "tainted" or just that it's harder for them to express themselves?
I wasn't talking about the form of expression, but about the "spread" of the art of a single person.
I think that try to reach a larger audience by an individual artist in a world where the art is mass produce by great monopolies is almost impossible.
(again sorry for my english, but i've some problem in trying to explicate this kind of concepts in a language that is not my motherlanguage)
This is why commies need to be purged.
you born this dumb or you have to work at it
I'm not entirely sure I understand.
Obviously a giant blockbuster industry like Hollywood would have no problem pushing completely fake anti-creativity "products" to society at large in place of actual creative works. I doubt many would deny this. However there are definitely artists who survive on a completely niche basis and while these artists may not find the wide public access that the mainstream artists do they are still "found" and passed around among like-minded people.
So, to me, there is real genuine expression that can be found even in our ill societal structure.
I'm not denying the fact that there are actual artist, and that they have some audience, in fact this is not for me the problem.
I quoted Gramsci before for a reason, culture needs to be spread, one of the objective of a revolutionary movement is spread a proletariat culture, try to educate the people with an art of their own, fighting a cultural battle. The proble is not if there are or not artist, the problem to face is to oppose to any kind of hegemonic culture. The decadence of art doesn't mean the disappearing of actual artist, but the spreading of a worldwide capitalistic and consumistic culture that indoctrinate and idiotize the masses, and that commodify any kind of creative expression.
Ayyy gotchu fam.
...
What does this mean though? Who or what will decide what art is "proletarian" and what art is not?
See now this is a wonderful statement but it seems to be at ends with the above statement. On one hand there are proletarian ideas which should be prioritized but on the other hand you are saying that it is the capitalist culture at fault for spreading it's own ideology and purposely making people stupid and there is the implication that, if we did not live in such a society, that the proletarian art would naturally swim to the surface.
I just feel like there's some sort of logical connection I'm missing in all this.
Abstract, moralistic concepts relating to the nation and its people while being against the Joos and their evil corrupting influence on whites and their noble heritage.
Still waiting for all the great culture communists have come up with.
...
...
...
...
...
1.) Communism has yet to be achieved
2.) The nations that have attempted to achieve socialism/communism have/had existed for very small amounts of time, compared to capitalist or feudalism nations, so expecting them to create a "whole new culture" on par with said societies is a bit daft
3.) Even then I suspect you know very little of the liberal arts in attempted socialist nations, and their formative achievements. hint: They've made quite a lot
Also
We have the facts and evidence, you just need to R E A D and O B S E R V E
wow you really showed me
en.wikipedia.org
Pathetic faggot that you are, rejecting evidence like a stormnigger.
wow. decimated. utterly.
...
Right wingers are uncultured and ignorant, what did you expect. They steal from others and claim it as their own.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
You can collectively suck our cocks now.
spooks, all of it
I'll try to explain myself the best i can, but i suggest you again to read Gramsci, because i'm actually only simplifying his thinking.
There is nobody who decide what is proletariat culture and what not, but the proletariat himself.
A proletariat culture "una cultura nazional-popolare" as Gramsci called it, means an art that his direct expressione of the people, that is read and produce by the people, and that can create somekind of moral values, common ideas that will unite the proletariat of one specific country. The critique of Gramsci, starts with the observations on the italian literature, that during the romantic and post-romantic period, altough the Risorgimento, hasn't developed a good popular literature, but only an elitist one, (first example of this was for him Manzoni.) So Italy remained for a log time without creating any great romance that was readed by the people, and not only by some little elite of intellectual. He takes example from the russian literature, showing how Tolstoy or Dostoevskij were actually read by the russian masses, while the italians workers read for the most part foreigner writers like dumas or sue. He thought that this kind of authors had the capacity to represent some feelings and aspirations of their people, while the italian ones cannot. He for the future hoped that new writers not only could create some literature for the italian people, but a literature that was poisoned by hegemonic values of the bourgeoise.
I'm still trying to understand what on earth this post is trying to say. What a waste of dubs.
Ok I think you have made it much more clear here and I thank you for that. I'm also starting to better warm up to what you're talking about and will look into Gramsci.
However, I still have a fear and and anxiety over something. You are talking about capitalism propagating it's ideology which is anti-proletarian. Yet how do I know that a socialist society would not go out of it's way to propagate it's own ideology at the expense of artistic expression that is deemed "not reflecting the needs and wants of the proletariat."
When I think of the socialist realism movement for example I don't think of art that resonates with me. I think of propaganda and that horrifies me.
Hell what if I personally like the writers that Gramsci gives example of being "elitist"? Now obviously I haven't read them but I'm just giving that as example.
I may actually make a thread about this sometime since it's just about the only thing that keeps bothering me about leftism.
Yes, it should, but that would make far too much sense for the far right. They have to chalk everything up to some unnatural intrusion on a naturally perfect system, rather than a system broken at the level of its basic logic and institutions, and so they look for anything which targets that system to lay blame for that system's effects upon.
"Degeneration" clearly refers to a specific type of change influenced by the specific material factors that govern such a change, yes? If you acknowledge that culture is "under constant change" you've essentially accepted his point.
I don't like Stirner, but Iave to agree that culture is a spook.
i actually like a lot of writers and poets that probably Gramsci would considere "elitist", Manzoni included and probably he liked someone to. Artistic valutation is not just "white" and "black","like" and "not like" it's far more complex to valute literature .
Revolutionary period are not the best for art, or at least not in the moment when the revolution is in progress or in danger, you just can't know what would happen.
kys
Given it's a leading even if corrupt system since a long time in big part of the world and the culture exists practicalyl everywhere, yeah, it can.
Culture is degenerating? Not in my country. We're doing fine.
In the places the culture is degenerating, it is because wealthy elites easily manipualted stupid, gullible masses - throwing nice sounding slogans and destabilizing countries. In US college students with hearts in right places but brains in the gutter became violent and controlled opposition destroying the culture while turning regular citizens against liberal ideals and socialist doctrine (after all, if dumb, violent people unwilling to discuss facts but going by feelings are the ones supposedly supporting socialism, then anyone else will associate socialism with such kind of retarded attitude).
In Europe, instead using this opportunity to actually bringing country under the rule of people and enforce fair distribution of resources, people voted for those who just piled up economic migrants from middle east in attempt to create a loyal electorate and further reinforce their power. It didn't work but since it's only the people who suffer, not the elites, they keep on doing that hoping it'll work out at some point.
That's why your point:
When those who support socialism (some of the antifa groups, red squads etc) actually are the puppets of the ruling destroying the culture and oppressing people, it's obvious that every regular person will claim "yeah, you can say what you want - your actions prove that socialism is detrimental to the people and their culture". Shame, but it won't change as long as people decide to behave the way they do.