Cultural Marxism

used to be called "cultural bolshevism", it's as old and ridiculous as nazism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
interesting, I never heard of it before o_o

No, it's just a conspiracy theory.
No, the very concept runs contrary to materialism, which is central to Marxism.
Yes, a meme dating all the way back to the Nazis.
They do it because they don't understand what Marxism is.

A few people on the fringe right truly believe in it – especially when start approaching fascism; this doesn't make it mainstream. Especially Breitbart. I'm sure he believed in a lot of stupid things.

...

Well, they are somewhat right. After the world communist revolution of 1968 failed us, the idiots within the movement decided to rebrand and try to gain more appeal by adding in identity politics and here we are. Look at nearly every all communist movements that exist today, is there even a single one outside Holla Forums and a very few others that are not identity politics cultural marxists?

op why do you post such a retarded picture?
of course you can joke about each of those people as long as nobody in your audience is racist/sexist/etc.

as soon as a Holla Forumstard listens in your joke stops being funny and becomes rightwing propaganda, because Holla Forumstards and other idiots are too stupid to understand jokes and think it is real.

This is exactly what I mean.

Holla Forums is supposed to be above whining about other boards and identity politics trash like this poster yet he's here on our board and not fucking banned.

I don't get it

Well, is doesn't exist in the sense that there is a vast conspiracy to destroy western society and culture but you do have modern day 'marxists' et al. who one seek a "revolution" within cultural aspects of society (ergo, identity politics) while being completely fine with, or uninterested in, capitalism.

That is basically where the modern day definition comes from. Off course, there are cultural changes, related to (original) feminism and homosexuality which are good but the entire "men are terrible, white people are inherently racist, there's nothing wrong with islam but christianity is terrible, et cetera"-crowd basically gives life to such claims.

There are definitely differences though. Jokes about (poor) working class people are seen as completely fine while joking with the same intensity about immigrants or gays would be seen as less acceptable in general.

what, on reddit you mean? how about we send OP back there then?

wut

Well, I just meant it in a general way, not neccessarily related to this forum. Now, I'm speaking from a Dutch perspective and not an American, but jokes about lower class people are completely normalised here (and in certain aspects, rigidly integrated in general culture, with for example the entire "well child, if you don't study you become a lowlife construction worker") as opposed to jokes about Islam.

I've noticed that most things that right-wingers refer to as being "Cultural Marxism" tend to be things pushed by capitalist liberals, it's a way to blame things caused by capitalism on communists.

Remember, in the Last Son of The West video, during the part where he was dragged down by Marx's army of zombies, how it showed strip clubs, obese people eating fast food, and reality TV stars, all things that are capitalist products?
They decide that any cultural phenomenon that originated under capitalism that they don't like was actually because of communists. It's all just a ton of mental gymnastics.

I agree with this, they don't understand how all of the stuff they're seeing as bad can just as well be a product of liberal capitalism and have nothing to do with marxism or communism itself.

For a fringe right, they sure get a lot of fucking attention from Hillary and the media.

8ch.net/pol/res/7358904.html#7359230
I asked pol what the thought about it and they got triggered. Check out dem comments. :D

rofl. good one

I'm one of those commenters, the one from TRS, the one that wasn't triggered.

I pretend to be a Marxist on lefty websites and get banned for being a sinner :^)

KEK

Marxism is OK but in my view National Bolshevism a la Stalinism is superior.

I have and Labour Theory of Value is absolutely and utterly fucking retarded and debunked by every single economist and real life itself.

But to add more from others

1) In the rise of Industrialisation, the proletariat (= factory workers) were a majority. Nowadays, the majority belongs to the bureaucrats (= office worker) and this is a completely different situation. Why?

Because the problem of communism was a problem of propriety. The factory worker produced, but his product was taken away by the bourgeois. So, the communist solution was a restitution of the product to the producer. (as I see it, the main point of Marx/Communism. This problem of restitution does not only apply for the factory worker, but also for the artist and thinker [who both also produce] which is why I oppose the critique that communism is anti-intellectual.)

What does the bureaucrat produce? Nothing. Paper, files - they do not bring up the question of propriety. So in the modern world, there is no problem of restitution of ownership, which is why a communist revolution is unthinkable. The proletariat is, at least in industrialized countries, a minority and hence not a revolutionary force. (I'll leave the question, if a (real) communist revolution is still possible in countries that are still industrialising open - but I think the international community won't allow it) Bureaucracy and its dynamics was geniously satirized by Terry Gilliam in Brazil.

2) In the beginning of Industrialisation, the proletariat was miserable, which is a pretty good premise for a revolution. Of course, Marx hoped that the pro-proletarian intelligentsia and the proletariat itself would see and seize the potential of revolution - but what also happened was that the bourgeoisie saw the threat of revolt, so, intelligent as they were, they gave the proletariat rights and commodities, which made their situation better and choked off any revolutionary threats (at least in western Europe). Instead of a revolution, there was a proletarian movement - which was also good, of course. So by showing the worker the way to communism, Marx also showed the factory owner, how to stabilise capitalism and make it better and stronger. Nevertheless, the restitution of ownership did not happen, so the proletariat, at least according to marx-ian principles, remained suppressed.

He underestimated the ability of rich people to make deals. He had no way of imagining the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society. He didn't realize the amount of creative work that capitalists do, and the fact that any sort of wealth increase has to be driven by technology and entrepreneurship. He lived in a period of colonialism, and so was unable to imagine a world in which trade would be economically beneficial to a developing country rather than explotative. From Marx you get practically every modern social philosophy either as an heir or as a counter-ideology. He created a way of looking at history as progress that can be argued against.

So Communism, at least in its original form, is strictly bound to the early Age of Industrialisation. It was bound to a time, where a) the proletariat was a majority and b) where the proletariat was miserable enough to be revolutionary. He got wrong that social revolution would be necessary in Europe.

As for Cultural Marxism, this was the result of the failure of a Communist Revolution materialising after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_events_in_France and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_1968

So they once again, Marxists changed their MO. The wait of Marxists for a global proletarian revolution and capitalism to collapse failed to ever materialise so they turned to implementing an intellectual vanguard which created the likes of industrial marxism (Leninism) and agrarian marxism (Maoism) which both also failed miserably so they tried once again which culminated in the events of 1968 and that failed as well so they decided to move marxism again by changing their mantra to include things such as multiculturalism, environmentalism, sexuality, promotion of political correctness, and promotion of terrorism. Look at all communist movements today and compare it with the communist movements of the past. An excellent picture would be the one of Stalin holding his head in his hands looking at the neo-rainbow Cultural Marxism and the Hitler looking smug and laughing at him in the background.

socialism and communism seem synonymous with failure at this point. No matter what they do they just keep fucking up and having shit collapse on them spectacularly. Why would anyone subscribe to this nonsense when it's clear it doesn't work and only results in catostrophic failure? They only seem to know how to destroy things, it's the only thing they're good at. It's the sort of thing you would pollute an enemy nation with to ruin it from within, not a legitimate system to implement in your home country.

The whole point of Marxism is that it's materialist. If you take away materialism from Marxism it stops being Marxism. In fact, as a general rule if you take away materialism from anything it just becomes an excuse to spout meaningless drivel without justification or thought.

Why the fuck do we KEEP having threads about this?

stop drinking the marxist kool-aid bb

Because the porky propaganda machine KEEPS making classcucks.

Fun fact: Marx was a reactionary rustled by the excesses of bourgeois society, i.e. cosmopolitanism.

...

The communist manifesto is only 50 or so pages long, it's easy to read in terms of length but horrible to read in terms of content. The thing that sticks out to me the most is a line that goes something like
which is then followed in the next paragraph by something along the lines of
And basically the whole thing is full of contradictions and bullshit that's hidden by Marx's horrendous prose. The guy can't write coherently at all. Here's a direct quote from it:
Silly goyim, there's nothing wrong with the destroying the white race because race doesn't exist, now let us take over your country because countries don't exist.
And he actually recognizes that the majority of the world is innately opposed to his ideology, to which his solution is to force communism on every country in the world until no one is left to oppose him. Fucking kikes.

He and Engels also thought of non-whites as incapable of industrialization; primitive. Not worthy of surviving to the next stages of human progress.

Jokes about white guy
I never actually heard a joe about "white males". except for Dave Chapel

That can't be a direct quote of Marx because the original was written in German.

Can you tell me what is the direct quote? Have you translated german version of Das Kapital? I'd really like to know!

I don't that's the definition of socialism, mate :^)

I don't speak a word of German, so I have no idea what the actual quote is. Maybe Marx was a shitty writer. Maybe the translator was an idiot. I don't know.

You have no fucking reading comprehension do you?
It's not a very hard to understand phrase and the only way you can interpret this as "lol there's nothing wrong with destroying the white race" is to do olympic levels of mental gymnastics.

It means that the working classes of the various countries do not own their country, they do not own their nation. They are instead owned by their countries to be used and abused by the owners of that country as needed. It's as dumb as saying you're going to take a master from a slave.

not my post btw, just pasted this one
8ch.net/pol/res/7358904.html#7359620

Hey I think my dad made this meme

Because the problem of communism was a problem of propriety. The factory worker produced, but his product was taken away by the bourgeois. So, the communist solution was a restitution of the product to the producer. (as I see it, the main point of Marx/Communism. This problem of restitution does not only apply for the factory worker, but also for the artist and thinker [who both also produce] which is why I oppose the critique that communism is anti-intellectual.)
What does the bureaucrat produce? Nothing. Paper, files - they do not bring up the question of propriety. So in the modern world, there is no problem of restitution of ownership, which is why a communist revolution is unthinkable. The proletariat is, at least in industrialized countries, a minority and hence not a revolutionary force. (I'll leave the question, if a (real) communist revolution is still possible in countries that are still industrialising open - but I think the international community won't allow it) Bureaucracy and its dynamics was geniously satirized by Terry Gilliam in Brazil.

Yeah, if it's a pointless job it will cease to exist under communism.
Not having a job is completely fine

...

lel

Not interested in what someone says, just what they do. Socialist say many things but in the end it always ends in destruction and failure.

and the way to solve this problem is to abolish countries and nationality.

...

I have only ever heard light, playful jokes about whites being kind of silly and pretensious. When I hear jokes about blacks they're usually horrifically racist on the level of "lol blacks are too lazy to work so they just steal lolol fried chicken XDDD"

in the begnining
read derrida

...

Can I interest all you fine folks in a ride on my uncle's helicopter? He taught me in the weekends and won't be around for a couple of days and he entrusted me with the keys, says I'd make a mean pilot one day.

E-mail me

You be the judge

youtube.com/watch?v=G8pPbrbJJQs

this.

sage

lol

its an eastern euro thing. like western altright, post-soviet bloc nationalists claimed that post-90 techncrats are "culturally still marxists". it was easier to sell their shitty pitch to anti-soviet voters this way.

Cultural Marxism definitely exists, but has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism*

Cultural Marxism* definitely exists, it's what Holla Forums and associates call any socially progressive change in order to malign it by association with some malicious conspiracy. It's an utterly spurious term, but that's what it means these days. You can't argue to Holla Forums that cultural marxism doesn't exist because immigration and gay sex existing ARE literal cultural marxism to them

youtube.com/watch?v=DBfT0pi0cMs

Why don't you post something more relevant, friend?

why don't you post an argument

You know chemtrails dude

How about you kill yourself faggot

I'm going to make it really easy for leftypol.

You know Marxism can roughly be summed up to "class struggle to overthrow the dominant economic group and establish a classless society" ?

You know how liberalism can roughly be summed up to "tribal struggle to overthrow the dominant social group and establish a tribeless society" ?

You see how marxism is about the economic aspect ? You see how liberalism is about the social (ie cultural) aspect ?

Well there you go, you have a made up word for liberalis : cultural marxism.

That's stupid, and wrong, and a bullshit fear mongering tactic and you're a cunt for allowing it, kill yourself.

Your argument was flawed. I was simply pointing it out. Don't be so triggered, either provide some real evidence or don't.

You know how Holla Forums can be roughly summed up to "white struggle to overthrow the dominant Jew and establish a homogenous society?" Guess that makes Holla Forums liberals then. Huh, really makes me think…

I'm afraid I don't understand what a 'tribe' is supposed to be in this context.

Try not to sum up things you know nothing of.

Well, to be fair Holla Forums are pretty much just a different color of SJWs. You can't do any serious analysis of their ideology without the similarities becoming blatantly apparent.

But that's wrong.

As always, leftypol missing the point. Cultural marxism is a neologism made up by 90-105 iq conservative guys to put a word on something that's happening they don't like, that thing is modern liberalism. They take what they know/knew of leftism as a whole, ie Cold War anti-USSR propaganda, and shift it onto that new thing, tweaking it by putting cultural in front of it because that's looks like what they know, only it applies to culture, and they're done.

Tribe is any in-group one feels one belongs to. So race, religion, ideology, class, whatever, but it usually is about race, gender and sexual identity these days. Tribe is a group in idpol.

nope
Liberalism is the natural rights, rule of law, individualism nonsense lolberts spout.
What the US defines as liberalism isn't a coherent ideology but a mix of pragmatism and good-doerism, with hints of Social Democracy in the XXth century.
It's trash, not for "bad principles" as you claim but for a complete lack of principle.

Again, missing the point.

I refer you to

your point was shit to begin with.
Cultural Marxism is a rehash from Kulturbolschewismus which was Nazi propaganda.
Holla Forums usage varies wildly from proposed identity equality in media to Jewish fun stuff, it's not a descriptive notion, it's propaganda, and it deserves no consideration.

REAL PROOF CULTURAL MARXISM IS REAL.
youtube.com/watch?v=0NOmJE-HzME

It's weird, scary AND evil

...

People actually believe this made up history?

conspiracyschool.com/blog/holiness-sin-freud-frankfurt-school-and-kabbalah

The whole idea of "cultural Marxism" is so fucking retarded.

Holla Forums types sincerely believe that all leftists (which includes Hillary Clinton) are non-material Marxists who support a revolution but only if it excludes white dudes.

Oh yeah I agree.

There are a small but vocal contingent of people with very wacky views on race and gender (ie, all men are naturally rapists, white people should be eliminated through eugenics, participating in vanilla sex is inherently oppressive), but these people don't have any substantial influence in any political theater outside of college elections at some small private schools.

They're also not Marxists at all. Very few of them take capitalism into account when discussing the world's ills, and the minority who do are rarely Marxist in their analysis.

I like calling them "fundamentalist liberals" for this reason.

huh, wow

Working men haven't got countries, you classcuck.

A steelworker in Trier is not served by the Prussian king. His life would not be substantially different under the French Emperor.

If this steelworker is a nationalist, and proudly roots for "his team", he's serving the interests of the elite who run the country rather than himself.

yikes

Or just consumerist neoliberal identity politics. Also RIPsters/reactionary identity politicians.

All leftist Idpol is founded on Existentialism(Feminists, Beat movement, hippies…), right wingers don't know any philosophy so they equate any social movement in the 20th century with Marxism. we should give Sartreite crowd and counterculture movement the blame they deserve since they're a good historically accurate scapegoat for today's problems, as well as a propeller of Lolbert thought, it's a pretty good target for thrashing.

There's some truth to this.

looks p neat

No.

I regularly run into someone who says this comes from Antonio Gramsci and that it should be called Gramscism not Cultural Marxism. He claims he read Gramcis works but I call bullshit. What could possibly give him this idea?

It was actually a term made up and wildly used by the Nazis.

So yeah…

...

...

So what you're saying is that Marxism is a spook? :^)

It's the embodiment of abstract deconstructionist postmodern fun stuff that is the root of social evils.

It's weird and different so it triggers me.

...