Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron

Original text is from Gary North, an insufferable tea party asshole, but he actually made valid points in this article (you can read full text here

There's some really cringy shit in between reasonable arguments, so I'll just greentext the parts of the text that I wanted you to pay attention to, and we will ignore the right-wing nuttery

Anyway, just a daily reminder that cultural marxists are enemies to the leftist agenda, because it is diverting our cause from changing the mode of production, which is the only thing that we should care about, for social and cultural issues will get solved once the mode of production is changed for the equal and just model, where workers own the means of production. You cannot stop discrimination in a system that is inherently discriminatory.

Other urls found in this thread:

Read Uygur

We are reaching peak levels of spook

Also from the article
Top kek wat

The Young Turks guy? Can you point to a book or article that is supposed to be relevant to this thread.

Yeah like I said in the OP the writer is terrible and dishonest Tea Party nut, and the text as a whole is steaming pile of shit. The notion that Cultural Marxism is actually anti-Marx is however a very valid point, and thats what I wanted to bring out from that article.

fuckk you sink gewgur is a real comrade you sreviosinst wscum he understand that socialism is real yony on paper because paper uis ideas, and ideas is the readl world

ideas are the gnositcs either that is makes up real reelatiy. hegel unfertstood tjos because he had good ferman blood. bnut Marxx was a stinky j/ew and was onfused. but thats ofkay necuase marsx is made many important accomploshements even without udnerstanding the exterstedial gniosus.

but theis is why we need pro-yound turks! ANTI-Revisionist, Anti-Trostkyist ANTO-NaztRot! Pro=gay Mairrage! REal Nazbukl United FrOnt! This is /Onlay readl NAbol!! Incan gnosis ideaaalist is the real understanding that Postadist could only begin to understanmd!!!!

Isn't Foucault the actual "cultural Marxist", not Gramsci?

The Frankfurt school thing is apparently a somewhat popular conspiracy theory among right wingers, this is probably useful to know incase it's brought up while debating.
This is probably the source of the Holla Forums narrative against leftism too.

Yeah but that is the thing. The article puts forward half-baked claims, which are supported by nonsense and conjecture. That latter is forever tied to the former.
It is obviously possible to come to the same conclusion from different premises, but so far this thread has only listed claims and statements with literally nothing to back them up.
Cultural marxism isn't defined, discrimination isn't defined. It is just a cluster fuck

Read Engles' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State if you want to back up your statement "the only thing that we should care about, for social and cultural issues will get solved once the mode of production is changed for the equal and just model, where workers own the means of production."

The point you are trying to make totally escapes me, cant even tell if you're trying to be funny or just mentally disturbed.

Perhaps this will jhelp to to undersrtand


does this picture actually say anything?

You totally miss the point of socialism in op.

no, it's just crafted nonsense.

Allright I'll grant you that my source was terrible. I also grant you that Cultural marxism is a bullshit term invented for propaganda purposes, but everyone these days should know what kind of thinking and people that term refers to. It's the social liberals who have post-modernist views on social and cultural issues. They have turned Marxism upside-down by making culture and identity politics their most important agendas, while ignoring the economic issues. The title of the thread actually agrees with you, Cultural Marxism is an oxymoron, therefor it's a nonsense term.
Regardless what we call it however, the idpol is rampant among us leftists, and we should stand against people who try to divert workers united struggle against their exploitation, into identity fascism that is more concerned about the workers ethnic or gender diversity in the workplace, than actually giving workers their well deserved ownership of their tools and rewards.

The entire Das Kapital was Marx' effort of stripping politics out of it's idealism and mystical elements. To show that capitalist system will not function without people believing in it, kind of how stage magician's show turns into sad and pathetic when all the smoke and mirrors are taken out. Marxist system is supposed to be completely materialist and rational, like a digestion system of an animal or planetary rotation. A system that works without the need of imagination.
Identity politics, no matter if malicious or benevolent in it's intentions, completely shits on the Marxist system. Ideas like cultural apropriation, manspreading, ethnic and gender quotas, all of that is idealism that only exist in the idpol people's own head, they are lifting their own ego and petty feelings on a pedestal just like capitalists treat the stock market like some kind of demigod. Both practice magical thinking and replace the material facts with what one wise man once called as "spooks".
Ok I will, can't really comment more on that unless you bring some quotes.

Here's some quotes from Marx about capitalism and it's magical thinking, just in case I'm not explaining my point well enough myself:
and on idpol(racism)
These days he would probably say that labour cant emancipate itself in any color of skin as long as people keep talking about the color more than they talk about the emancipation of labour. The slavery is over so its time to unite, no matter what color of skin! Racism and reverse racism needs to stop

This one is for the idea of cultural appropriation

Literally all we should focus on until it's achieved.

The Frankfurt School didn't on the whole. Adorno was if anything the ultimate "everything is bad" type who wanted nothing but radical self-negation of identity and was a materialist. Didn't on the whole because Marcuse and Horkheimer later on led student movements, though it's damn hard to say that this had anything to do with the supposed neo-Marxist cultural transformation conspiracy.

Gramsci though? He might have been a decent philosopher and I am not well read enough on philosophy to comment on that, but he was an extremely shitty Marxist and communist. His whole idea of the proletariat needing "its own intellectuals" not within its organization but ouside of it and before is (revolution cannot succeed if it doesn't start with the intellectual inculcating the worker) is mimicking bourgeois society. It's pure opportunism that aims to redefine the revolutionary subject. Essentially it's an idea that appeals to academia and college kids that Marxism unfortunately seems to increasingly attract, which is the reason why Gramsci is so popular. His "cultural hegemony" bullshit paved the way for the increasingly idealist understanding of politics, that claims the supremacy of will - political determinism (READ: This lead to gems such as this:

The problem with excerpts as this one is not that the description of the neoliberal network isn't true. It is just that this is a symptom which is treated as the cause, whereas the cause for neoliberalism actually lies in the economical sphere. Here a friendly reminder by the old Moor on the issue:
>The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided – i.e., the more perfect – political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will, the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society.

In a recent Zero Books video, I'm trying to find which one, Doug explains that if there ever was a "cultural Marxist" in the non-conspiratory and most surface level understanding of the term, it was Gramsci.

I agree with you here, but you seem to think that cultural marxism and idpol are one and the same. The latter is just a way to sub-categorize class so specific interest groups (which is obviously against any class consciousness or worker's movement by its very nature), the former is just a meme word that right wingers use to claim that marxism is trying to destroy culture. Which as you pointed out is impossible due to Marx's materialist philosophy.

Yeah, I guess I fell for the rightwinger's trap for using that stupid term.

I'm not a stalinist, so what is your point with that?

Foucault disliked Marx and believed his ideology was doomed to the 19th century. He was more into Nietzsche