Whoa. The board is getting hit hard. Maybe time for another nice Cultural Marxism thread.
In this one we ask is it happening?
If so are those doing it aware of it's aim or are they just self-hating libtards?
Bonus points if this thread doesn't descend to you all asking me to point to exactly where the Frankfurt School commands anyone to destroy the west.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
mpcdot.com
en.wikipedia.org
rationalwiki.org
youtube.com
justpaste.it
en.wikipedia.org
bellhooksmegafan.tumblr.com
academia.edu
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
8=====================D
would you prefer I call it neo-marxism?
remind me OP, where does it talk about importing muslims, trannies and the conspiracy to destroy the white race????
Cultural Marxism is part of what stops these concepts being questioned. Anything that challenges the cultural hegemony in the west is good in their eyes. This is an issue because it assumes all aspects of western culture were delivered from on high as opposed to forming organically over time with input from the citizenry at large.
Critical theory teaches students to pick holes in society. Given it is only taught in the west the the only target is going to be the west.
What's next? Putting a "do not enter" sign on the door is cultural nationalism? Saying "no" to your teacher in class is cultural anarchism? Sharing ayy lmao memes is cultural Posadism?
Critical theory is too broad of a term. There is post-marxism, postcolonialism, feminist centered theory, psychoanalysis etc. None of these schools necessarily agree with each other.
And Frankfurt school is pretty much dead, with Habermas not being a leftist ever since the 60's and instead becoming a pragmatist/Kantian.
Second, even your basic assumption that you make about "Western civilization" being inherently oppressive is also wrong. In Adorno's and Horkheimers book "Dialectic of the Enlightenment" they point to the abuses of reason and teh enlightenment which "could" (emphasis on could and not does) lead to a totalitarianism. The main point derided from both that work (And Marcuses "Eros and Civilization") is that ALL civilization is oppressive, because of the mechanical and instrumental (rather than critical) abuse of reason.
This of course is not a new insight, and Freud also made it, but it was with regards to marxism, how civillization could be liberated from it's chains of dogmatism through understanding and not technical knowledge. In essence you could dub the Frankfurt school as a more "romantic Marxism", in that it was pessimist, suspicious of the enlightenment, but not dismissive of critical reason and the critical revolution of the 18th century.(as that of of Hegel,Schelling, Kant, Fichte)
Fighting shitty threads with more shitty threads.
"Organic creation of society" for a Marxist is always centered around resources, modes of economy, and class struggle. Which is pretty much the materialist answer to how the base of societies are structured, rather than idealist which was teh standard in the 19th century.
you're welcome :)
As I said, I'm not looking to put this all at the feet of the frankfurt school. The frankfurst school laid the groundwork with things like critical theory. Though it wasn't just them. Cultural Studies came from the UK and is at least as large a part as critical theory.
Maybe not all SJW. But their tactics and focus are helpful to the more subversive elements who practice it.
Jeez. You need to read this cap here.
Literally, 'critique of [western] society along the lines of deconstructionism with the intent of changing western culture to make Marxism fit'.
fullfuckingretard.jpg
you couldn't define marxism if your life depended on it
Man read a book, you might as well be critiquing Sociology as a whole then because it applies critical analysis to societal assumptions we hold.
Deconstruction and post-modernism has almost nothing to do with the critical theory of the Marxist vein, and is inspired by Heidegger and Nietzsche.
I'm not trying to. We're talking about cultural marxism. Or Neo-marxism some are trying to pass it as now.
Read these two if you're new to the topic.>>833147
is this a joke thread
yes, but no one told OP
Sociology is largely influenced by Marxist ideas of social conflict.
If I'd called this thread neo-marxism would the responses be the same? If so I wonder what's in a name.
That's not going to work anymore when there are evidences ITT that the phenomenon cultural marxism describes (critical theory, culturla studies to affect change in the west) are now clearly defined on wiki.
I know, I know. Wiki right. But if it was bullshit you would have deleted it by now as you did these.
^ …what
Right. Find a real source.
???
Good, so you are against sociology, anthropology and political science.
Good to know Holla Forums has bright minds such as yours.
These pages are still up.
Neo-Marxism is a loose term for various twentieth-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, usually by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions, such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Sartre).
Erik Olin Wright's theory of contradictory class locations, which incorporates Weberian sociology, critical criminology, and anarchism, is an example of the syncretism in neo-Marxist theory.[1] As with many uses of the prefix neo-, many theorists and groups designated as neo-Marxist have attempted to supplement the perceived deficiencies of orthodox Marxism or dialectical materialism. Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School, were sociologists and psychologists.
Neo-Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to Marxist philosophy. Strains of neo-Marxism include: critical theory, analytical Marxism and French structural Marxism.
The concept arose as a way to explain questions which were not explained in Karl Marx's works. There are many different "branches" of Neo-Marxism often not in agreement with each other and their theories.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Why are you still bringing up Wikipedia you fucking retard?
I've no issue with anthropology. I think it could have some interesting conclusions. Sociology can have it's uses but when applied in the way favoured by the frankfurt school
The only conclusion that will be reached is that there's a problem with western culture. Any defenses of said culture are written off as 'spooks', or
In frankfurt school speak.
To prove that it is a thing. You people have way too much influence over at wiki. That these articles aren't deleted suggests you cannot find decent ground to do so.
Are you saying that neo-marxism isn't a thing either?
Bruh. You do realize there's such things as contributors, right? People with proven, well-read knowledge in specific fields? The existence of articles written by cranks that are then subsequently deleted because they are categorically proven to rely on falsehood and poor sources does not mean there's a conspiracy. Challenge basic critiques of your conspiracy theory or it will remain nothing but that: a conspiracy theory. Even better would be to find individuals that are not Anders Breivik, but I suppose the wingnut right is too flattered by his allegiance to the cause to discredit him.
you cannot be fucking serious
Like it or not, wikipedia is riddled with SJWs and the like. There are human biology articles where ideological crap has been injected directly into the article and is aggressively supported by the faction responsible.
but I am. I point you again at the second one here
Within an hour of posting that page on this board it was deleted as the logs show. It has since been brought back as the grounds for deletion were poor.
I accept this. I also believe that the most active editors are largely left leaning, and as this thread shows the left doesn't like the idea of cultural marxism, despite it coming from you guys.
Besides, there's nothing false about cultural marxism. The only issue is the term. I suspect it is because you don't want Marx tainted with this SJW bullshit, even if it did spawn from the ideas of Frankfurt School Marxists.
Critical Theory
Psychoanalysis
Marxism
Avant-garde
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Biology
mpcdot.com
Was posted on Holla Forums the other night in an attempt to disprove the cultural marxist conspiracy theory. Now organised by the Frankfurt school or not the methods called cultural marxism today are very much real and plain fopr all to see, aside from apparently yourselves.
[citation needed]
If you have more than claims it would be nice to give them.
I suppose astronomers being the main contributors to articles on space exploration now warrants accusations of conspiracy and cultural milky way subversion now, right?
Read a fucking book instead of posting jpegs of covers of books you haven't read.
Critical theory sets out to find strings to pull on in a society, with the goal of bringing about change (praxis you guys call it right?). That it is taught exclusively in western society means that those studying it largely won't look beyond western society when applying it.
Psychoanalysis is largely unverifiable soft science. I've no issue with it as long as it is never treated as more than a soft science.
Your last four are strawmen attempting to paint me as anti-science. On the contrary, I love nice solid verifiable science.
Kek, is it really that hard to comprehend that you can't just easily read highly technical, jargonistic texts that are working on problems you are unfamiliar with in a school of thought you are unfamiliar with?
THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING!
no wonder Holla Forumstards are so fucking stupid if all they do is spend time on imageboards, reddit and twitter (and wikipedia, not it seems) instead of reading an actual fucking book
I'd try supplying some if I thought you were asking in good faith. I don't. Anyone lurking who's interested can go look for themselves. The material isn't difficult to find.
that this is an article
en.wikipedia.org
and cultural marxism was disappeared.
The difference is astronomy is a physical science with right and wrong answers. Sociology/marxism can be argued to mena various things and so the default is to side with the guys who has the best theory and rehtoric. This doesn't make it objectively correct. It doesn't surprise me that the people who write about Marxism are marxists. The bit I don't get is why you're so keen to write off cultural marxism when there are a dozen other Marxisms since the 50s that aren't regularly deleted on wiki. Hell neo-marxism is very close to cultural marxism, though cultural marxism is a more accurate descriptor, and one that was embraced academically up to a point.
Meanwhile, Metapedia, the Wikipedia for white supremacists which is related to Holla Forums and Stormfront (which has been actively known to defame and edit articles on their cultural Marxism conspiracy of Wikipedia), felt too uncomfortable with the historically recorded link to the "cultural Bolshevism" conspiracy in Nazi Germany on their own fucking wiki and decided to edit it out completely. Even they are slightly uncomfortable with being linked to the actual Nazis so the article has since been edited to remove any and all traces to what is essentially the same meme repackaged for modern red scare tactics and the inability to read books. This is how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest these mongoloids are.
>X sets out to find strings to pull on in a society, with the goal of bringing about change
It seems to me that X = politics, except of course if I account for your phrasing ('pulling strings' meme) which pretty much signals your conspiratorial world view (le joos). What is fascinating is that every text from the Frankfurt School is available to be read. What a shitty group of conspirators, no?
No. We call praxis class struggle.
Moron. They teach humanities all around the world: Asia, Africa, every fucking continent. This just further confirms that you have no idea about what you are talking about. You know jack shit about universities, spooky books, politics.
Psychoanalysis doesn't claim to be a science. (Add one more thing to the list you don't know shit about.)
Yes, and you definitely seem like someone who is actually involved with it and not just an angsty teen who sees Ricky Dawnkins and Sammy Harris as his personal messiahs.
I'm not here to defend metapedia.
Let's look at one closer to this boards own heart.
Is there no way you can understand the difference between Kulturbolschewismus (a nazi propaganda term turned into a conspiracy theory by the 'alt-right') and critical study of culture through a lense of other disciplines?
Frankfurt critical theory assumes that culture is a construct of porky and thus is something to be deconstructed. Yes or no?
They teach cultural studies in developing countiers? Well I'd love to see some of these works. Cause even a retard like myself could rip the culture of the MENA region a new one.
Well, you're wrong.
If you had bothered to read Jameson at all, you'd realize that his usage of the term "Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with alt-right conspiracies.
Are students from western universities attacking the culture of the west? Are these people largely products of the humanities and sociological departments of universities? Was such an infiltration proposed and endorsed by neo-marxist theorists?
Yet you're here to completely ignore the ideological functions of the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism as "destroying the west"[sic].
I can tell you're either new or retarded. Actually, it might more be that you're completely cognitively dysfunctional, since you haven't bothered looking at articles about communism on there to even notice "Rational" Wiki is the bastion of modern-day neoliberalism, which is staunchly and historically (just like liberalism) the logical antithesis of communism and Marxism (dialectical materialism).
We know. We've read the book. Give it a try as well; it's here for ya.
I wish the term took off then because it [Jameson's term and definition] might have had a life as a term that actually indicates something existent and cogent: the application of dialectical materialism (Marxism) to purely cultural phenomena instead of where it traditionally was used (socioeconomics, political and historical economy, etc.). But alas, reactionaries jumped on the train a few years later to make the term mean "destroying le family and other thing that will give us credibility to ignorant conspiracy theorists", so it's a pity the term will never have a chance to be reapplied to something real and will forever live on as a meme on private reactionary forums and imageboards.
This is literally the charge I level at you so thanks.
If the end goal of cultural studies and critical theory isn't the complete reshaping of western cultural values then what is it?
A generation of Marxists, however, began turning concentrated attention to cultural phenomena in the 1920s. Perry Anderson (1976) interprets the turn from economic and political analysis to cultural theory as a symptom of the defeat of Western Marxism after the crushing of the European revolutionary movements of the 1920s and the rise of fascism. In addition, theorists like Lukacs, Benjamin, and Adorno, who instituted a mode of Marxist cultural analysis, were intellectuals who had deep and abiding interest in cultural phenomena.
In Gramsci’s conception, societies maintained their stability through a combination of "domination," or force, and "hegemony," defined as consent to "intellectual and moral leadership." Thus, social orders are founded and reproduced with some institutions and groups violently exerting power and domination to maintain social boundaries and rules (i.e. the police, military, vigilante groups, etc.), while other institutions (like religion, schooling, or the media) induce consent to the dominant order through establishing the hegemony, or ideological dominance, of a distinctive type of social order (i.e. market capitalism, fascism, communism, and so on). In addition, societies establish the hegemony of males and dominant races through the institutionalization of male supremacy or the rule of a governing race or ethnicity over subordinate groups.
So you've been reading books?
These are already two different things.
Cultural studies? Cultural analysis that concentrates upon the political dynamics of contemporary (modern) culture.
Critical theory? A philosophical approach to studying culture, and especially literature, that considers the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures which produce and constrain it.
Are you gonna read the book now or are you gonna keep on pasting more and more paragraphs without context or implications behind them? Not much we can do with this, except assume you're playing a purile pressure game with irrelevant texts you do not know the intricacies of.
Dude, you aren't interrogating me. I'm schooling you.
'Culture' as a whole isn't a 'construct of porky.' (Notice meme-tier, again.)
And it isn't something the Frankfurt School proposes, really. Go back to Marx, hell, even earlier attempts at materialism. You call yourself a devout science fan, so you should also respect materialism.
The spontaneous beliefs we form about the world we live in obviously correlates with that actual world. If I live in slave holding society, with a certain set of technological advancements, etc. my art will reflect that, my thoughts will reflect that. Same goes to Feudalism or *gasp* capitalism.
Now to the 'porky' part. Turns out, that if you look at these different societies there was an obvious bias when it came to the spontaneous thoughts of the people towards their rulers, also it turns out that these thoughts weren't so spontaneous at all, culture, religion, art, even science were tilted towards their favor. If you look at how Feudalism ended and capitalism came about you'll notice that first the zeitgest changed: people thought of the lords and kings as parasites on the people. This was the pre-requisite for our societies to change over to capitalism.
Now if you were, back in those times, a king, a lord, an aristocrat, or an idiot who thought that he's interests align with his rulers, you thought that the great thinkers like Kant, Hegel, or even Robespierre were a conspiracy against the culture, the beliefs, the morals of the time. Well it wasn't. Everything happened right in the open.
Yes, they do.
No, you don't. It's established by now that you haven't read a single fucking book in your life. (Not that you could actually read in another language other than your own.)
Maybe one of you delightful scholars can tell me where this arcument falls down.
Can you make this post again without memes
Feminism = kabbalism
Starts about here. And that's being generous tbh because
>critical theory, cultural studies
The latter is much more recent than critical theory and a development much more related to the developments of sociology and psychoanalysis respectively.
Daily reminder.
So original,
So when we do this it isn't ok? lol
So culture is affected by material conditions. Fine. I've not said otherwise. But it can also work in reverse, that is a paradigm shift in culture could lead to a change in the relationships in society. This is what I propose 'cultural marxists' are trying to do. And the wiki cap on the frankfurt school supports this.
And is the result the same as over here? That's to say an attack on the 'cultural hegemony'?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm sorry, but cursory glances at poorly sourced jpegs, out of context paragraphs and links to YouTube videos won't cut it. I've merely asked you to directly source me to quotes or evidence that the supposed cultural Marxism has links to your conspiracy theory, and to at least read a single, at most 200 page long book. Is that too much to ask for a soldier of reason and rationality such as yourself, or am I asking too much to start?
Alternatively, have you heard of world ice theory?
No.
Well actually fuck it. Since you asked so nicely.
Did the frankfurt school and related Marxists come up with critical theory and cultural studies?
Did these thinkings and related schools of thought seep out into the humanities more broadly?
Are people who study the humanitires more likely to apply critical theory and demand special treatments or changes in laws based on the conclusions they reach using critical theory? (an aside, their conclusions are generally unfalsifiable [privilege theory, institutional X-ism])
This sounds like the plot of a movie.
...
So what did they mean by this?
That's a first for this board, demanding proper levels of evidence. Normally you all just point evidence devoid hyperbole such as Zizek.
That wasn't me.
Cultural marxism IS the conspiracy. It is a catch-all term for individuals and ideas who's prime motivation today is reshaping western culture.
As was hinted at above, one book is generally not enough.
Just 'Marxists' is fine, thank you. No need to call the followers of the Enlightenment Cultural Kantianst, etc. You keep portraying all this as some evil spooky thing while it's nothing of the sort. If you think that history ended with global capitalism you are blind.
Have you tried reading it? It's not too hard to comprehend, since you have the full context. So, I'd both like a source and context for those paragraphs and the part you claim means "reshaping western culture".
Have you read the book yet, or any books at all?
I know, it's hard to understand continental philosophy, but that's not really my problem now, is it?
How can you know if you haven't even read a single one? Or are you suggesting you've read and fully understood the nuances of a 200 page book already?
So you acknowledge that some neo-marxists ARE trying to use culture to affect change? Was this really so hard?
Are you not following this bit?
It basically says 'critique culture to affect change in culture'.
That's what happens when you let anti-rationalist thought run free. Debate loses context and words take on different meanings to different people.
I'm suggesting that even if I was to read say pic related, I'd likely need a solid grounding in sociology to really get what he's talking about.
Kek, I'll fetch that Chomsky video, shall I?
THIS is how bad conspiracy theory followers are at reading comprehension, folks.
Politics encompasses all aspects of social life, it's ridiculous to single out culture (even more ridiculous to think about what you mean by it: muh white man).
Just wut, mange? This has nothing to do with neo-anything. Marxists understood from the very beginning what I've just said [my first sentence].
The irony in all this is that the likes of Adorno and Benjamin are like gods when it comes to the love of Western culture compared to the self-avowed contemporary defenders of it. They've read thousands of novels, philosophical texts, poetry, listened to classical music, adored European paintings and sculpture, architecture. They've spent a great effort to defend these values. Take for instance Adorno's "Culture Industry."
If this is the main point of contention I'll take it down a peg.
Cultural Marxists are primarily concerned with reshaping western culture.
Better?
Aren't Fascists concerned with reshaping western culture?
Well yeah, we are…
I have no fucking words for this horseshit.
Two replies in and you've substantially altered this quote to mean what you want it to mean and still haven't given us a source, context or otherwise. Give us a link now or be prepared to enjoy a back and forth in which an out of context quote is perpetually spinned into your narrative and nobody goes anywhere.
I believe the word you're looking for is non-analytical thought. Which wouldn't surprise me, as I doubt you've read any analytical philosophy either, just like you haven't read any continental philosophy.
You don't. Jameson is also not first and foremost a sociologist, but a communist.
I hope you're an interlocutor in this thread that came to laugh along with me, but in case you're not, I hope you're prepared to be disappointed when you realize Chomsky is also a communist and a supporter of the enlightenment as-was. His memey feud with Zizek aside, he's basically on our side despite being critical of contintental philosophy.
How, when, where? If you change the narrative with semantics, it doesn't change the fact that you've failed to pinpoint us to even a single quote, source or evidence proving as such. In fact, the only quote (is it a quote, or a citation?) you've brought us in this thread that MAYBE suggests something like it you've categorically ignored our request to source us on.
CULTURAL FASCISM!
You must have missed the "wiki cap" part.
Me? I think western culture is the best on offer in the world today. I like the values we took from the enlightenment, I like that claims should be supported with evidence to be considered true. I like the idea of liberal democracy. I think that attempts to degrade and attack these values will weaken our culture and break community bonds. I also think that more determiend cultures will move in to fill the void. You know who I'm talking about.
Before somebody jumps down my throat on 'liberal democracy', I have no issue with what individuals choose to do. I do take issue with classes seeking laws to protect them above others in society and using their proclaimed sensitivities to shut down honest and important debate.
I know where you got it from. I'm asking you to cite a source confirming that what is claimed there is legitimate. A jpeg won't suffice, especially (and I hope for the sake of your argument) if that same cropped part of a larger page doesn't come from the poorly-sourced article on the conspiracy theory that was since deleted for those very reasons. As seen in the jpeg, there are sources capped in brackets [14], [15] and [16] but neither of us can see where they lead to to confirm. This is why reading, citing, sourcing and peer-reviewing claim is important if you ever want your conspiracy theory to become anything more than that: a conspiracy theory. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask you once more: please link us to the direct page with the claims, or to the sources directly. Thank you.
...
[detecting the_joke.gif: failed]
It's an old right-wing trick. Make your conspiracy theory broad enough to appeal to everyone (Christians, atheists, working class people, the rich, family men, virgin neets).
When it comes to the ranks you recruited this way, your fellow comrade against "the cultural marxist/jooz/4D lizards" might seem a bit off to you (like a virgin neet to a married man, a christian to an atheist) but you are still united against the boogeyman (not realizing that there's not one specific kind of it).
What? Change is one of the stated goals. And source is right there in the first part of the quote.
I assume you have this on your BIG WOODEN bookshelf. Check it for yourself.
Maybe. I was more thinking anti-positivist but broader. Anti-rationalist was the best I could come up with. The beef I have with anti-rationalism (deal with it) is that ultimately it aims to put the soft sciences of an equal footing with physical sciences.
Not that guy, but good man.
Ever feel we're talking in circles?
Tools developed by Franks are today applied near exclusively to western culture. These analysis 'reveal' hidden systems of oppression and muh privilege throughout society. Is it such a leap to assume that these analyses (as they assume inherent problem in western culture) also seek to change said systems?
If the alternative desired by the cultural marxists was desirable and attainable then why the 'through the back door' approach?
Jesus fuck it comes from here
en.wikipedia.org
I've posted this already ITT. Now quick. Log in to wiki and correct that record.
Oh, this thread again.
Let's get this over with
1) It's just a rehashing of the Nazi "kulturbolschewismus"
2) The Frankfurt School was actually quite conservative. Their whole point was that capitalism was destroying Western culture.
3) The whole idea is stupid, more the result of conservative paranoia than anything legitimately Marxist. For instance, it runs on the basic assumption social structure and development is centered around culture, which is a more conservative idea, whereas Marxism typically posits that economics is the prime driver of social structure and development.
4) In the end, it's more of an ideological tool for the far-right. The far-right tends to believe that society normally exists in some state of harmonious natural order, but that natural order is corrupted by a malignant foreign force, which leads to conflict and strife. "Cultural Marxism" is just a way for the far-right to lump the critics and opponents of the current order in with everything they don't like about society, and then set them up as the malignant foreign force causing all social ills.
This is where the 'cultural marxists' deviate from orthodox marxists like YOUS.
A quick question if you may, do you disregard neo-marxism and western marxism in the same way you do cultural marxism?
...
Well yes, if those ideologies and associated groups were targeted for discrediting, yes.
Gotta distract the proles from their material conditions, focus them inwards, where everything is possible with enough bullshit fed to them.
lol, go be illiterate somewhere else
Historical materialism isn't really up for debate with Marxism. Along with Marx's critique of capitalist political economy, it's what Marxism is.
"Deviating" from historical materialism is "deviating" from Marxism entirely into something completely different.
Though it should be noted that this never happened. The Frankfurt School weren't the ebil subversive boogeymen you'd like to think they were. Most of them were actually pretty socially conservative. Most of what you call "cultural Marxism" is just society changing, or various disparate liberals just being liberals. It has nothing to do with Marxism.
The BO here isn't a mod from over there?
The reason for the move from orthodox socialisms was pretty much a look at the implementations of marxist-leninist socialism and say 'welp fuck that's a mess'. It's perhaps not surprising that IDpol has taken off so much since the collapse of the USSR.
ad-hominem, also argument-from-authority
I just want you to recognize me!! It's been so long since you told me to kill myself.
So you reject neo-marxism and western marxism as bastardisations of Marxism? Fine. Many others don't apparently.
Nah lad. Just a throwaway comment.
Nope.
Except that doesn't correlate. First off, Marxism isn't some monolithic ideology existing only the the form of Marxism-Leninism. If Marxist-Leninist states "fail", that's not any cause to completely abandon Marxism altogether.
Second, in the time period when the Frankfurt School was active, the USSR seemed to be an outstanding success.
Cultural Marxism is REAL.
Neo-Marxism and Western Marxism don't deviate from historical materialism.
I-it's real guys. Look at this poorly formatted Holla Forums infograph.
OH SHIT MY NIGGAS, WE JUST GOT ROASTED
This.
You people are annoying. If you need some special snowflake ideology (anarcho-hoxhaism, yes) don't put Marx's name on it. Especially, if you are literally denying Marx's most basic concept.
Why no wordfilter for Cultural Marxism?
I'd be down for Cultural Marxism being replaced with Jewish Communist Anti-West Sentiments or something like that.
The problem with these threads is that people who try to aproach academic concepts and especially academic Marxism have firstly and most importantly no idea on the theoretical basis of Marxism and think it's an abstract ideology.
Second they are hardly versed in academic issues and the various schools and how they are different or in what way they are influenced by one another. It might as well be magic/sorcery to them.
I can understand why the neo-nazies from Holla Forums do it since it is convenient for their Jew hating "Kulturbolshevismus" meme McDonald revived. But seeing bumbling alt-right uneducated idiots repeating it is just sad, and shows what a nasty and anti-educational political environment the United States has.
an hero pls
...
I propose: kulturbolschewismus
again with wikipedia lmfao
So are you saying there is no such thing as neo-marxism or the definition of wiki is wrong?
Can someone recommend me some good books to do reading about critical theory, "cultural Marxism" etc.? I want to read a book but I don't know where to start.
left/pol/ will just feed you jewish lies.
academia.edu
So what makes a culture western as opposed to eastern? Is it merely location, or is there some sort of checklist out there filled with arbitrary requirements that need to be met in order for a culture to be considered western?
Sorry, tagged you and forgot to respond. Check out "critical theory: a very short introduction", it's available on bookfi. Also check out "poststructuralism" from the same series, since Holla Forums doesn't know the difference between them (or really anything aside from muh conspiracy theory) so it's helpful the know some basics to BTFO these fuckers
That doesn't defy historical materialism.
It's possible to critique culture without believing it's the driving force in society.
Liberal democracy, a decent set of freedoms, generally secular legal system. Surely you can see a difference in culture between western culture and that of say MENA, south america or africa? Even japan has a different culture from the west, though there are elements of value in Jap culture.
I never said otherwise. I also never said that cultural marxists made such a claim. They are trying somthing that hasn't been done before, to affect change in the base by first chaninng the culture that hey see as reinforcing capitalism.
How bout this one?
en.wikipedia.org
There seems to be a cultural focus in both western and cultural marxism. But trying to distinguish between people who critical theory, as in to determine whether they're neo or western, is hair-splitting. Yes, cultural marxism may be a lazy term. But it is a perfectly acceptable synonym for the people who focus primarily on culture, be they neo or western.
These threads are fucking useless. I get the impression that it is the same illiterate imbecile who tries to prove to himself that Gultural Margsism is real again and again.
Pretty much, but for all the proclaimed smerts of this board you do a piss poor job at debunking it.
People misusing Marxism doesn't invalidate Marxism and we shouldn't shrink from acknowledging that people misuse Marxism. People misused Darwinism (and capitalism as a whole still does), but that doesn't make evolution not true.
Liberal democracy arose because it was more efficient for the rising bourgeoisie than absolute monarchy was. Has nothing to do with culture.
By what criteria makes these freedoms decent? Is there a core list of certain freedoms a State must provide in order for a country to be "western"?
Again, not unique to the west.
Your list so far just seems to be "abstract things that I like" rather than results of a methodology.
Start off with:
In that order.
I can't believe no one has posted the cultural marxism webm.
Postscript: also by this criteria, western culture can only have existed since…the French Revolution? And it certainly didn't exist in Germany except during the Weimar period and post-WWII
But I thought the alt-right were Dark Enlightenment and shit! Traditionalists! It's almost as if they have no idea what they are talking about!
how? there isn't anything to debunk
not only do they not have any evidence for their conspiracy theory but we can just link works by frankfurt writers themselves to show how retarded they are.
...
Thanks a lot, I'll check these out.
