Is "cultural marxism" an actual ongoing project, or a made up conspiracy theory?

>Dialectics of Authority
not a thing
>"The Authoritarian Personality"
a work literally nobody cares about except for buttflustered nazis

Which proves nothing.

The point is that classical Marxism failed. WWI proved that national identity was far more salient than class identity. The failed Hungarian Bolshevik revolution showed that Christianity and the family were counterrevolutionary. That's why it's called Cultural Marxism. It's about weakening a society to the point it can be Marxist.

"The Authoritarian Personality" was important because it pathologized normal and healthy behavior.

Reminder that nobody but stormfags gives a fuck about marcuse and that marxism is economicist.

>WWI proved that national identity was far more salient than class identity.
lol

>The failed Hungarian Bolshevik revolution showed that Christianity and the family were counterrevolutionary.
lmao

this is some sweet revisionism
where'd you read this?

>mfw /pol/fags care more about these guys that virtually anyone else

>Political correctness existed long before Marcuse

You are COMPLETELY wrong. Political Correctness is based entirely on marxist ideas and it didnt enter the popular zietgiest of america, or whatever you want to call it, until the late 80s and early 90s

nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all

nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html
It was born out of the New Left (which Marcuse is considered the father of). one of the first books criticism PC culture was "The Closing of the Political Mind" by Alan Bloom which was all about how college campuses follow this dogmatic practices of shutting down any view that disagrees with them based on the idea of political correctness. You are clearly making shit up about a topic you know nothing about

Not him but:

>Political Correctness is based entirely on marxist ideas
Quote anything by marx supporting this.

>it didnt enter the popular zietgiest of america, or whatever you want to call it, until the late 80s and early 90s
Are you referring to all PC or specifically to modern PC? Because the first would imply that PC shit related to tradition and "christian values" never existed, which would be ridiculous.

>cultural marxism
>meanwhile USA annihilates local cultures all over the world with their toxic consumerist culture
Capitalism literally rules the world and stormfags complain about some imaginary Marxist enemies.

Political Correctness in the modern colloquial sense is a term that was used by conservatives to decry a position supposedly held by (soviet) communists.
Being 'politically incorrect' was a way for conservatives to tout their bullshitt, in supposed opposition to what was persecuted in the USSR under the crime of 'political incorrectness'.

>the failed Hungarian Bolshevik revolution showed that Christianity and the family were counterrevolutionary

Since when is little entente called "Family and Christianity"?

If that isn't true then why were the peasants of Europe patriotic instead of rebelling? Why did the peasants overthrow the Hungarian Bolsheviks? If you think they weren't woke enough to like Communism then you need to take a break.

You realize PC isn't a term for generic censorship, right?

>>Dialectics of Authority
>not a thing

>a work literally nobody cares about except for buttflustered nazis

why? because you say so?

>Top Hat
>Erik Rhodes' Italian characterization so offended the Italian government - and dictator Benito Mussolini in particular - that the film was banned in Italy. The same fate befell The Gay Divorcee (1934) the year before.

>The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC,[1] P.C., or p.c.) in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to particular groups in society. In the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.

>PC shit related to tradition and "christian values" never existed,

because it didnt. You dont even know what political correctness is.

>making up bullshit

>If that isn't true then why were the peasants of Europe patriotic instead of rebelling?
false conscioussness
The aftermath of WWI didn't exactly see a continuation of these patriotic tendencies
>Why did the peasants overthrow the Hungarian Bolsheviks?
Are you talking about the '56 revolution?
Because you do realise Nagy was a commie too, right?

The work is called Dialectic of ENlightenment

>why? because you say so?
Because it isn't taken seriously even in psychoanalytical circles

>it exist, but only literally hitlers cares about it!
>its just a dumb conspiracy theory!

What's the difference between political correctness censorship and censorship because of muh morals? It's the same shit but targeting different groups.

>this damage control

It would be incredibly difficult to pinpoint an exact origin for a concept as large as "political correctness." The point is the Marcuse and the Frankfurt school were instrumental in propagating ideas that allowed "political correctness" to become the dominant paradigm within which the contemporary dialogue takes place. That is, anyone who wants to speak to a mainstream audience has to be sensitive to political correctness to a degree that was unheard of in the past. To demonstrate how dominant and stifling PC culture has become recently, here's an article about comedians bristling under the constraints placed upon them by the need to be PC:

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/16/how-comedys-war-on-political-correctness-went-mainstream/

>WWI didn't exactly see a continuation of these patriotic tendencies

are you retarded? Europe went into fascist mode instead of commie mode

idpol is used to divide the lower classes user

Even if the consciousness was "false" it matter more than the real one.

The 1956 revolution was interesting, but I meant the one that happened in 1918. The Communists destroyed all the statues of Hungarian kings and heroes. They took over the schools. Parents didn't approve.

Idpol matters more than classes. A rich and poor compatriot have more in common than a foreigner of the same class. "Class consciousness" is the real spook.

Realize these socialist heroes have ethnic and class loyalties too. Nomenklatura.

>German revolt and subsequent social unrest
>Spanish civil war
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917–23

Wew yeah, they went fash right away

>That is, anyone who wants to speak to a mainstream audience has to be sensitive to political correctness to a degree that was unheard of in the past.
Hays Code was worse than anything we have today.

>banned in Italy
>by a fascist dictator

So by your logic whenever a totalitarian regime suppresses unflattering depictions themselves they are acting out of "political correctness."

The film industry voluntarily adopted the Hays Code. The only mistake they made was scrapping it.

Who gives a shit if some literally who communist acted tough before they got their shit pushed in? They all thought europe would turn red and they were completely wrong.

>A rich and poor compatriot have more in common than a foreigner of the same class.
only according to the rich man

Where is the argument, literally Hitler?

>Demonstrate there was massive continentwide social unrest in the aftermath of WWI
>yeah but fascists won anyway so you're wrong

wew

>right wingers
>read

top kek

>massive continentwide

>massive

this is why no one takes you guys seriously.

>"voluntarily"
Because they wouldn't be able to show their films.

>The Supreme Court had already decided unanimously in 1915 in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio that free speech did not extend to motion pictures,[10]

Just because you (wherever your from) have no sense of ethnic solidarity doesn't mean it don't exist. Never heard of a "paesano" or black Americans calling each other "brother?" These things transcend economics.

>it isn't massive unless I say it is

The difference is the Hays Code was a piece of legislation that specifically outlined what was and was not acceptable and because it was legislation it could be repealed which it was. However PC culture on the other hand is a nebulous idea that has neither legislative foundation nor clear boundaries for what is and is not acceptable and therefore is much more difficult to regulate which causes people to self-censor because they are unsure about what they can and cannot say.

You don't actually believe that do you. Countrymen share a language, culture, religion, history, locale, and often ethnicity. How is an income level more important than that?

That doesn't bother me.

Early colonial America is full of uprisings by alliances between black slaves and white indentured servants.
So much so that they had to outlaw whites associating with blacks.

>Hays Code was worse than anything we have today

blah blah blah. this is all you attempting to derail the discussion about Marcuses influence on left wing PC culture and SJW stuff by simply saying "well other people censored stuff before!"

>has nothing to do with was stated

Communism thinks economic answers are the only answers. That would be ok if those answers weren't retarded.

>which causes people to self-censor because they are unsure about what they can and cannot say.
That's true for every form of censorship. Hays Code was also pretty vague about certain things. Especially when it comes to violence or sexual situations.

>Frankenstein
>After bringing the monster to life, Dr. Frankenstein uttered the famous line, "Now I know what it's like to BE God!" The movie was originally released with this line of dialogue, but when it was re-released in the late '30s, censors demanded it be removed on the grounds that it was blasphemy. A loud clap of thunder was substituted on the soundtrack.

>The film was banned in Kansas upon its original release on the grounds that it exhibited "cruelty and tended to debase morals".

>As the essential part of the "lake scene" was cut from the film in 1931, theater and later TV audiences were left to wonder how the girl who was found in the lake actually met her death.

...

There is no evidence cultural marxism is solely responsible for orchestrating the entire far-left, it is confirmation bias typical in conspiracy theories, ironically the same kind of reasoning used to blame everything on whitey/patriarchy.

Here's a simple test:

If it doesn't want to abolish private property, it isn't Marxist/Communist.

It can still be leftist, e.g social democracy, welfare capitalist etc. But it's not Marxist, nor is it Communist.

>There is no evidence cultural marxism is solely responsible for orchestrating the entire far-left,

see

The USSR didn't abolish private property. Was it not socialist?

>right wing groups introduced heavy censorship that lasted for more than 40 years
>nothing wrong about that, they were protecting our morals!
>left-wing groups complain about some things on twitter
>muh freedom of speech, this is worse than Stalinist Russia!

See
Economic Marxism doesn't work in a healthy culture. You need Cultural Marxism to make it politically viable.

Duh. The state is good when we have it and bad when we don't. Lenin described this. Who whom. Who shall rule over whom. It is the only question of politics. Principles don't really matter winning does. If you don't win you're fucked.

>The USSR didn't abolish private property.

Really? How many private companies were there in the USSR?

youre attempting to derail the discussion about Marcuses influence on left wing PC culture and SJW stuff by simply saying "well other people censored stuff before!"

They can't use logic to debate because they are wrong. Only sophistry can defend a lie.

All the small business was private - cobblers, bakeries, cafes, tailors, and so on.

What was nationalized was big farmland (not small farms or gardens), big factories (not small workshops) and mines and other natural resources (the commons).

>What was nationalized was big farmland
That had no consequences at all.

You are moving goalposts. Answer or admit you are wrong.

>All the small business was private - cobblers, bakeries, cafes, tailors, and so on.

So why did they imprison and murder several million Kulaks?

see

Because Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc. were all so "gulturaly marxist" right?

I'm not moving the goalposts at all.

The USSR obviously wasn't Communist. It was a form of authoritarian socialism.

But suggests that if it didn't abolish private property, its not socialist.

The USSR didn't abolish private property. Most, if not all, people under the USSR owned some form of private property.
It was the "companies" who lost their property, not the individuals. Only big business was nationalized.

>All the small business was private - cobblers, bakeries, cafes, tailors, and so on.
I doubt it was common in Soviet Union. Are there any statistics about private property in SU?

>All the small business was private - cobblers, bakeries, cafes, tailors, and so on.
Are you sure about that? Wasn't it some early time when these were deemed irrelevant and thus overlooked?

>suggests that if it didn't abolish private property, its not socialist.

No, I said it wasn't Marxist/Communist.

But it can still be leftist, e.g socialist.

I'm a different guy.

Russia had a coup by non-Russians against ethnic Russians. China had warlords and foreign occupation. Korea and Vietnam are the same. Cuba was bankrolled after NYT fake news made Castro sound cool. They all needed a lot of murder to get rid of thoughtcriminals who believed in spooks. Religious and cultural leaders didn't fare well.

This is true, I thought it says socialist/communist, not marxist/communist.
My mistake.

"Individual property" wasnt nationalized. Only the "means of production" - factories, mines, quarries, farms.

>Russia had a coup by non-Russians against ethnic Russians.
Yeah, I'm sure all those Red Army soldiers were non-Russians.

Again, statistics. Because apparently USSR was less socialist than Poland. And that's hard to believe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_trade

>Leaders don't matter
>Cheka doesn't matter
>The first soviet doesn't matter

lol ok

Are Cafes means of production?

>Russia had a coup by non-Russians against ethnic Russians
uhuh, big and invisble with laser shooting from their eyes?

>China had warlords and foreign occupation
And commies who gained enough power to rekt both and unify the country.

You've completely missed the point. You don't need some """"cultural marxism"""" to get commies in power, communists can emerge everywhere, except for those countries with """"cultural marxism""""

>Cheka doesn't matter
Well, Felix was a Pole so there's that.

Leaders of course matter, but apparently people were more willing to join the communist than true White Russians.

Look up cooperatives or cooperations or something like that.
Hard to find information in english, but they weren't regulated much, they could have as many workers as they can afford, and could even conduct foreign trade (according to national politics, embargos, etc).

No, cafes are not means of production. Cafes (other than big restaurants or hotels or other such "symbolic" businesses) were not nationalized.
I know some in the biggest cities were, because they were just such symbols and had such a commanding position, but your small town mom&pops remained exactly that.

>The Soviet Law on Cooperatives, enacted in May 1988, was perhaps the most radical of the economic reforms during the early part of the Gorbachev era. For the first time since Vladimir Lenin's New Economic Policy, the law permitted co-operative ownership and small-scale private ownership of enterprises in the services, manufacturing, and foreign-trade sectors.
?

>No, cafes are not means of production.

Of course they are wtf.

200yearstogether.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/

It wasn't just Jews. Georgians, Chinese, etc. Jacob Schiff, a Wall Street Porky, funded the revolution because he believed in the spook of Judaism. Weird. It's almost like ethnicity matters more than economics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/schiff.html
britannica.com/biography/Jacob-Henry-Schiff

This graph is a spook.

There was another law, two years before that, which did the same thing. And another years earlier.
Its just faking productivity. Learn to communism.

nytimes.com/1986/11/20/world/soviet-law-widens-private-business.html

Also, this actually english source says such private businesses were illegal, even though they were literally shops in the Moscow metro. I am sure nobody noticed them *wink wink*

...

Also this was in use for about a decade
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

Basically state capitalism.

>Potent international financial interests were at work in favor of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference—a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. . . . The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists . . .

>Henry Wickham Steed, “Through Thirty Years 1892–1922 A personal narrative,” The Peace Conference, The Bullitt Mission, Vol. II. (New York: Doubleday Page and Co., 1924), p. 301.

What a stupid porky. His class interest wasn't served at all. Inscrutable.

>It's almost like ethnicity matters more than economics.
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. There are all kinds of people.

Only first two bars are in any way reliable.

NEP is a completely different beast and it doesn't count. I doubt that the bolsheviks were perfectly fine with small private property. Not during the Stalinist era.

Was the Senate hearing bullshit?

Yes.

>a decade of USSR economy doesnt count
What?
>the bolshevics didnt like it
The bolshevics proposed it and implemented it. Lenin wrote it.