What are some good books that advocate cultural marxism? I'm trying to consider different points of view?

What are some good books that advocate cultural marxism? I'm trying to consider different points of view?

"cultural marxism" is a term that is basically exclusively used by the right. it would be hard to find something in defense of it because leftists don't typically self identify as cultural marxists

Forgot about Gramsci did ya?

Imagine actually earnestly believing “cultural marxism” is a widely accepted term with objective meaning.

You know where you need to back to, you ducking trog.

It goes Hegel->Marx->postmodern literature

Grand Hotel Abyss is a good recent book on the frankfurt school

>Imagine actually earnestly believing in terms have objective meaning.

Gramsci never used that concept.

No one but the right uses that term, it's meaning less in an academic sense.

Nobody "self identifies" as a cultural marxist because it's a term of abuse.

Does no one self indentify as a cultural marxist for the same reason no one self identifies as a crypto-jew?

It's more of a blanket term meant to cover topics, thoughts, acts, events, people even remotely related with the left, Marxism, communism, critical theory/cultural criticism, postmodernism/poststructuralism, economic populism or skepticism the speaker wishes to dismiss when speaking to an audience whose mind is already set against these things and therefore doesn't care to learn about them.

Cultural Marxism can have two definitions

>Analyzing culture from a Marxist perspective
>Analyzing culture as the fundamental core of Marxism

The former is redundant and the latter is an oxymoron. Cultural Marxism doesn't exist.

It would have to be an existing concept for people to defend it.

Shills really came in full force in here.
Read books from the Frankfurt School. They are the ones that usually write all the marxist autism.

Why do leftists always adopt this martyred tone? It's like you're genuinely offended that some /pol/tard doesn't have the patience to wade through thousands of pages of irrelevant philosophy.

I guarantee you have not read a single text from a single Frankfurt theorist.

In terms of communism, you have, at most, read the Manifesto.

>cultural marxism

The_Donald/
>>>/Jordan Peterson's comment section/

>why are people annoyed at retards sperging out about subject they didn't even spend the time to study?

Elitists who were angry at capitalism for increasingly isolating and commodifying the individual, constantly frustrated that college students were jerks to them?
Why do you talk about a book when you have no idea what it's about [You're thinking of the dialectic of Enlightenment, but I would bet 10billion shekels you haven't', and won't, ever read it]

>in terms of communism, you have, at most, read the book which defines the most basic aspects of Communism and which is used as a base for any further developments of the ideology
Why are you telling me this?

>why would someone have to know about the thing they spend all day bitching about, want made a no no topic of discussion or inquiry, want erased from the historical and intellectual record?
And please don't reply with some snide reiteration of your personal beliefs or a fucking picture representing them

Well, when this irrelevant philosophy is made out to be the grandest conspiracy in the history of West despite zero academic study to it, it kinda bothers the people who are being accused of being a part of it.

>it's another "try to demonize Trotsky but accidentally make him look fucking metal" poster

So? Grow a thicker skin. Not everyone is as invested in this stuff as you are.

>read the book which defines the most basic aspects of Communism
what

the Manifesto was a call to action, not an explanation of communist theory. The ABCs of Communism is a much better example of the latter type of book.

No one from the Frankfurt school was a cultural marxist and people like Adorno and Horkheimer despised degeneracy, absolutely deplored homosexuality, women being whores, lasciviousness, pop culture, hollywood, atheism, materialism, consumerism. The idea that they were in favor of these things is a blatant lie by people who never bothered picking up a book outside of their tiny little field of interests. Read what they wrote you fuckwit. Baudrillard, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida are not cultural marxists they are post-modernists you fuck its not the same thing at all.

>grandest conspiracy in the history of West

It's not. You and the peterson fags are equally cringy and retarded.

>Not everyone is as invested in this stuff as you are.
I'm not invested in "this stuff", I'm not a marxist. Calling retards retarded takes me barely any time. And I'm pretty sure the retards that sperg about retarded conspiracies all day care a lot about this, they're just too dumb to actually research it.

>read the book which defines the most basic aspects of Communism
Way to prove that poster was right.

I've got zero clue why people suddenly get triggered by people using the phase "Cultural Marxist", why are they so insistent the Frankfurt School didn't critique popular culture now? somebody give me the rundown.

>It's more of a blanket term meant to cover topics, thoughts, acts, events, people even remotely related with the left, Marxism, communism, critical theory/cultural criticism, postmodernism/poststructuralism, economic populism or skepticism the speaker wishes to dismiss when speaking to an audience whose mind is already set against these things and therefore doesn't care to learn about them.

No, you're not invested at all, of course not.

/thread

That wasn't me. The poster is completely right though, I don't see your point.

Your entire society is culturally Marxist, i.e., run by jews who promote social atomization to divide non-jews.

Jesus. The Communist Manifesto was written in a hurry to outline the concrete time-specific short-term goals Marx and Engels thought communists should try to achieve at the time.
It is not the theoretical foundation of anything, the best parallel to draw from it to any contemporary writing would be something like Labours new manifesto (which is of course much less radical) and should be viewed as such. If you are interested in the communist activity of the middle of the 19th century, it is certainly a must read, but if you are more interested in Marx' general political theory, it is a really poor introduction.
If anyone is interested in a simple and short introduction to Marx, you should read Value, Price and Profit and Wage Labour and Capital. For a more philosophical entry point, read Thesis on Feuerbach.

Not seeing the point is a pretty common experience for you, isn't it?

This charge against postmodernism that has been so popular recently (no recently, really ever since it was first started) is because it challenges the cultural structures of power in society. If you follow thinkers who combat postmodernism today, you should question what it is these thinkers are protesting against (also, why they don't penetrate into the actual philosophy itself in their dismissal of it). Are you happy with the status quo, so happy you immediately reject any question or critique of it or those who produce it? It's ironic (not funny though) how these people who I don't want to label, but the type who always rail against postmodernism or critical theory are of the same mindset as these schools were, and I think are concerned with the same questions.

You really showed me, user.

He's trolling you, bucko. He wants to derail and drown-out discussion. He's postmodern.

The term is essentially an updated version of calling something "Judeo-Bolshevist" or "Cultural bolshevism", both of which were Weimar republic dog whistles for accusing someone of being a secret communist. To liberals, against whom its often used, its insulting as it posits their ideology as an offshoot of anti-democratic movement not very well known for its progressivism, and for Marxists it is insulting in that it essentially states that Marxists' main interest would not be economic conditions of the working class.

Maybe if it wasn't grandiloquent obscurantist gibberish mixed with pseudoscience it wouldn't be counterproductive to said challenge.

>Collectivists, not consumer driven capitalism, are responsible for the atomization of the west
>The frankfurt school, people who complained constantly in books nobody really ever read but talk about constantly, about how social atomization was killing the west, are responsible for this
interesting, tell me more, what's your favorite sargon video?

Never ceases to amaze me how shabbos goyim like this poster miss the target by a mile when pretending like they understand these jewish ideologies, which Sargon or anyone like him, by the way, most definitely never talks about.

That's actually a really nice summary user, good job.

Using stormfag memes instead of arguments doesn't work outside of /pol/. Try again.

What shocks me is you haven't posted your JEWS IN MEDIA macro yet

www.reddit.com

^Clink link and never hit the back button again. This place is where adult white men discuss the jewish problem. Get used to it, learn about it, and participate, or go elsewhere.

Because it is explicitly an antisemitic conspiracy theory invented by the American “paleoconservatives” in the 90s because they needed a new enemy now that the Soviet Union was gone, and hadn’t yet latched on to Islam. William Lind and Pat Buchanan are the ones who invented it, and intentionally as a modernization of the Nazi ‘cultural-Bolshevism’ conspiracy.

Except now instead of women wanting to work and vote, sex researchers acknowledging homosexuality, the public acceptance of Jews, abstract art and atonal music, today it’s third wave feminism, gay people, interracial marriage, rock music and so on. And right now, thanks to people like Peterson we are getting it brought forward two decades to be about transgender people, blacklivesmatter, and women’s studies or whatever else.

It’s all this repetition of ‘taking the oppressor/oppressed dynamic of capitalists and workers, and making about men and women, blacks and whites, strights and gays’ or whatever. As if those were conflict which didn’t exist before Marx. It’s historically illiterate.

>Jewish Marxism promotes conflict between black and white, men and women etc, promoting collectivism

>Jews promote social atomization to divide non-Jews.

Hmmmm.

I’m pretty sure it was Peterson who cried over how much he loves individualism.

The zombiesque true believer vibe oozing from this post is gnarly. Which one are you, m8?

See

I've only been to pol twice, which is why I ignored you the first time. Do you want to talk about the real world or about your little online kiddie squabbles with the meanies down the hall?

>Do you want to talk about the real world
Is talking about the real world equivalent to posting retarded memes to you? Again, feel free to use argument whenever you feel prepared, brainlet.

Walling greentext, equating me with some cuck who doesn't even talk about jews, then claiming I'm the one not engaging in proper argumentation was a bad strategy on your part if you actually wanted what you claim to, which you of course don't.

Still waiting for an argument, I know you can do it if you put all your brainpower to it.

The Jews are behind both collectivism and indivualism. Everything really. Including the fall of Eden.

These are pretty cool honestly.

>ctrl + f "Lyotard"
>0 results found
When did Veeky Forums get replaced with hordes of brainlets
Read the Postmodern Condition, OP
It's most garbage and hard to follow due to Lyotard's autism. However, in it you'll be able to fish out some lines which form the cornerstone of Social Marxism. Predominantly shit about "lol logic isn't real dude. It's just rhetoric. And all rhetoric is equally rhetoric, and thus invalid."

You sound like a leftover leftist from the 90s who still doesn't understand the jewish problem and strode in along the weblanes here to promote some jewish shill you yourself don't even understand. Am I wrong?

You can't learn about something that doesn't exist.

>Except now instead of women wanting to work and vote, sex researchers acknowledging homosexuality, the public acceptance of Jews, abstract art and atonal music, today it’s third wave feminism, gay people, interracial marriage, rock music and so on.

Ironically enough it's working class people who hate this kind of shit the most, and privileged college students who are the most vocal in their support for it. Somewhere along the line, the left lost its proletariat.

I mean, the original communists weren't even such bad people, they just wanted justice for the workers. There's nothing demonic about that in and of itself, it's a legitimate concern. Nowadays you're getting your knickers in a twist over things like "trans acceptance" and "islamophobia." It's like watching a bad comedy movie. What did Marx say? First as tragedy then as farce?

>Ironically enough it's working class people who hate this kind of shit the most

You'll quickly realize it has nothing to do with irony when you understand that its the jews infesting your urban centers and promoting these policies who are your enemies, instead of "privileged college students" or anyone else.

Wrong! WRONG!

>Are you happy with the status quo, so happy you immediately reject any question or critique of it or those who produce it?
The people who don't want the status quo challenged aren't happy with it, which is precisely why they don't want to put themselves in more danger.

The problem is they are invested, there's tons of /pol/ idiots who are seriously concerned that leftists want to use postmodernism to take over western society.

Cultural Marxism isn't really a thing. Just read any political book popular with progressives.
Well they do. Even if they don't understand the subject. It's rather easy to observe the nefarious ways it's used.

The idea that cultural Marxism is a ploy to take over western society from the inside is a bit extreme for my liking.
However I do think the awareness of such an evil plan will strengthen culture as a whole as a means of defense.
If if it's purely theoretical, imagine what would happen if people started to try and counter it by producing art they agree with themselves?
I think the question shouldn't be if cultural Marxism is real. It should be how it benefits cultural in the long run.

>communist propaganda
>cool

lmao

The art not the message it carries.
Propaganda usually looks cool.

It doesn't exist. It's an idea made up by the right. There are no 'cultural Marxists'.

Obvious false flag is obvious

Things existing or not existing are not relevant to how a concept can change culture.

>you need to read thousands of pages of dead Marxists bloviating about the exact same few points
This is exactly the sort of tactic that leftists love to employ -look at the form. Why would you need a ten thousand word rebuttal to a 19th century piece of anti Western propaganda? The tenets of Marxism fail because they go against the natural order. That's all there is to it. Stop advocating for the death of the West, and we'll stop talking about it.

/shrug

epic false flag

There's no such thing as cultural Marxism.

I think the smart neonazis, which are a tiny minority, don't actually believe the shit they spout, they just do it because it's useful to their goals. I mean, there's a ton of fake quotes, lies and made up shit with clear propaganda purposes, the people that made them have to be aware that they are lying.
The idea of truth as a political tool is disgusting though. Also, it makes stormfags closer to postmoderns than the people they hate.

Yes there is. Cultural Marxism is a similar and slightly more suggestive term for political correctness but a less direct term for what it really describes which is jewish distortion of language and culture.

It's just a term conservatives use to describe anything they don't like
> jewish distortion of language and culture
kek

>The idea of truth as a political tool is disgusting though
As someone who hates those that fetishize truth, I find it interesting/. Too bad its still infected with a schizophrenic antisemitism.

So which books do you recommend for starting to read marxs?

someone have moar?

Get the basics of the JQ down beforehand so you'll be able to read between the lines.

Marxism in this case doesnt refer to actual marxism, it refers to the materialist restructuring of society around anti traditional values and thought control.

>Marxism in this case doesnt refer to actual marxism,

Than don't call it Marxism.

>anti traditional values and thought control.
All forms of philosophy are 'thought control' and 'traditional values' is a fucking buzz word like 'family values'

I think the point he's getting at is that Marxism is jewish "philosophy," i.e., not our own.

>racial groups can "own" universalist philosophical tendencies
wow user for a moment you really made me think there

What is:
>Christianity
>communism
>neoliberalism

"Cultural marxism" does not exist because it makes absolutely no sense. It's pushed by American retards who don't even know about Marx or communism beyond anything they don't like.

threads like these are why we can't talk about marx on Veeky Forums

Yeah, JIDF always comes out in full force

"Cultural Marxism" refers to the general application of the Frankfurt School's Marxist ideology to the social sciences.

plus their emphasis on consumption rather than (just) production

Except he explicitly outlines just that, you fucking pseud how am I the first to give (you)

>doesn't have the patience to wade through thousands of pages of irrelevant philosophy.
Despite the fact that he thinks those pages represent the cataclysmic upheaval of western civilization?

Academics get pedantic in order to defend themselves against accusations that their work is harmful. One doesn't need to be educated to recognize that, but they can use the supposed ignorance of the critic in order to dismiss him.

>muh joos

You don't say.

That makes even LESS sense. I think what you are trying to say is that Jews and Marxism are handy words to refer to anything you dislike. And you view reality as a war between good guys and Jews, who sort of fill the role that Satan does in Christianity. That's really the best I can discern.

the fact the Frankfurt school exists is something the left is ashamed of and needs to hide