Cultural or Economic Marxism?

I think the idea of Cultural Marxism is funny because it essentially offloads all the social erosion and disembedding effects of nihilistic consumer capitalism to a dedicated cabal of nefarious academics and thereby absolving capitalism of its most pernicious byproducts. Its one grand exercise in cognitive dissonance aided by the binary mental shortcut that anyone who criticizes capitalism must be a socialist who hates everything right and true.

>Its one grand exercise in cognitive dissonance aided
sure thing, thats why every single western marxist, without except, believes in everything about cultural marxism

Cultural Marxism literally isn't a thing

ok

>hurr durr only things directly written by marx are marxist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
(im not defending the concept of cultural marxism)

Of course pseuds like to point at one thing/group and put all the blame for everything they don't like on it. (but socialist-pseuds do this too with "capitialism")

Why do marxist say cultural marxism doesnt exist when all it is is another name for the ideas of the frankfurt school (specifically Marcuse)/neo-marxism? both of these things are objectively real

That's far but I think in a significant way the cultural morass and traditional denigration Cultural Marxism is offered as a cause of can in a very real way be traced to the disintegrating/devaluing effect that capitalism tends to have on established customs.

fair*

What was the new left?

What were some of the things the new left believed in that are also present in the SJW movement of today?

Who was the "father of the new left"?

What school of social theory did this "father" belong to?

>that capitalism tends to have on
I agree, I just hate the term capitalism.

>still using SJW unironically in currentyear+2

>stop using a term I dont like!
didnt answer any of my questions

What was the new left?

What were some of the things the new left believed in that are also present in the SJW movement of today?

Who was the "father of the new left"?

What school of social theory did this "father" belong to?

>stop using a term I dont like!
This is what u look like when you say SJW

Why not both?

thats great, now stop avoiding my questions please

What was the new left?

What were some of the things the new left believed in that are also present in the SJW movement of today?

Who was the "father of the new left"?

What school of social theory did this "father" belong to?

Cultural marxism refers to two things at once. The first is the kind of neo-marxism you describe, which was just an attempt to expand marxism to other areas via the use of other thinkers (especially Weber and Nietzsche). The second is the supposed means by which a Marxist politics would come about via changing the culture and people's attitudes. While the frankfurters were not economic determinists, they definitely had the conception that the mode of economy was systemic and material, and couldn't be changed by simply changing cultural attitudes. Even more to the contrary of the theory, most of the frankfurt school wasn't even in alignment with modern "progressives"; Marcuse was socially conservative, Adorno wasn't conservative but critiqued a lot of progressive culture of the time.

yes your statement is accurate !!

>M-MARCUSE WAS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE
This is fucking pathetic user, youre not even trying

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
>For their part, Frankfurt School theorists quickly came to realize that a dialectical method could only be adopted if it could be applied to itself—that is to say, if they adopted a self-correcting method—a dialectical method that would enable them to correct previous false dialectical interpretations. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the historicism and materialism of orthodox Marxism.[32] Indeed, the material tensions and class struggles of which Marx spoke were no longer seen by Frankfurt School theorists as having the same revolutionary potential within contemporary Western societies—an observation that indicated that Marx's dialectical interpretations and predictions were either incomplete or incorrect.

And from the official CPUSA website
>I propose that the Party mandate that all its members take classes on learning the history of U.S. national oppression and, for lack of a better term, battling white privilege within our ranks.

>A simple and easy way that non-POC comrades can do this immediately is by looking within their organizing space and to see if they’re dominating conversations, committees and other projects. Many POC could benefit if our non-POC comrades took a step back or stepped down enough for POC, especially women of color, to voice concerns, opinions or proposals.
cpusa.org/party_voices/convention-discussion-identity-politics-privilege-the-national-question/

and furthermore, every single leftwing person in the west believes in all of this shit, and you guys are not only saying this doesnt exist at all, but that its actually the capitalist who created it?

passive aggression is just you admitting you have no real argument

This. Capitalism is responsible for the death of the west, while the cultural criticism that is referred to as cultural marxism is only an adhoc justification for why that's a good thing.

>Capitalism is responsible for the death of the west, while the cultural criticism that is referred to as cultural marxism is only an adhoc justification for why that's a good thing.
once again, blaming this shit on capitalism with no real logic or reason or proof behind it. Why do marxist always either ignore the SJW shit that has infected them or try to blame it on capitalism?

When did I say that it didn't exist, though? Not only does it exist, it is genuinely a school of marxism. The issue is whether it applies to the Frankfurt school. While they weren't strict historical materialists, they nonetheless did not conceive of capitalism as being wholly cultural.

Structural marxism, every day

>when you don’t know nothing about /weftypol/ so you use all the buzzwords to imagine how it would look like
Niggers like you make me speechless

>CPUSA
topkek.jpeg

CPUSA litterally allied with the democrats recently. “C” in their name is nothing more than a hollow shell now.

...

>when you're a leftypol shill and post the same image macro over and over again

sure thing leftypol

>T-they arent real gommunist though!
this shit really is a religion at this point. Also, not an argument

...

>it's another "c...cultural marxism isn't real" thread
It must be awkward to hold this position when the weight of evidence is vastly against you, but I guess this hasn't stopped Marxists before.

>implying some shitty discord server is /leftypol/
bruh

post a picture of yourself then lad and prove him wrong.

>t-thats not leftypol! we arent a complete farce of tranny retards and white guilt faggots at all!

>posting a picture of yourself
>on Veeky Forums of all places
to accomplish nothing is not what I wish to do

Neither I choose National Socialism

>The idea that there is a secret state of humanities lecturers, genetic biologists, and terrorists who exist only to sabotage the west is so stupid.

They don't necessarily start out that way. Oversocialization through long enough exposure to academia turns them into "True Believers" without even necessarily realizing it.

Better dead than red

Materialism is the responsible for the decay of the West. The struggle between Communism and Capitalism is a pseudo-conflict as they are both materialistic world views that are obsessed with the control of production; they both believe that humans are nothing more than flesh, blood, and sinews.

and what caused us to become materialist? what were we before?

Why

do

you

space

like

this?

Isn't the doctrine of Cultural Marxism to remove the main factor blocking Marxism, which would be western society.

When people stopped believing in the importance of the spiritual and the divine. People need something to believe in that's greater than themselves to give life meaning and purpose, otherwise they go stark raving mad. But to replace the worship of the Divine with the worship of men is insanity.

I'm pretty sure we were material when believing in spiritual stuff. You obviously know nothing about history and are trying to apply some utopian concept to the past.

>People need something to believe in that's greater than themselves to give life meaning and purpose

And this is even more fucking stupid. Both the complete of understanding for how different cultures in the past conceived religion and for projecting your shallow existentialist angst onto the past.

Meaning and 'purpose in life' can go to hell.

Cultural Marxism is literally not a thing, it's completely made up by right wingers.
Second, structual sexism and racism exist, if you deny this, you're just a fucking delusional /pol/faggot who shouldn't be a on a HUMANITIES board at all. The overwhelming science disagrees with you.

>I'm pretty sure we were material when believing in spiritual stuff. You obviously know nothing about history and are trying to apply some utopian concept to the past.

You clearly know fuck all about spiritual, philosophical, and religious developments of cultures in the past because almost all of them acknowledged the importance of the Divine and how they played into human nature. Even the highly logical Stoics found it important to cultivate spiritual growth. Materialistic cults and religions popped up here and there but they were always unpopular and often became extinct.

>And this is even more fucking stupid. Both the complete of understanding for how different cultures in the past conceived religion and for projecting your shallow existentialist angst onto the past. Meaning and 'purpose in life' can go to hell.

Keeping talking out of your ass maybe you'll make some kind of noise that will mean something. There's overwhelming evidence not only through historical anecdotes and but through modern studies as well that shows that people who live life without meaning are more prone to self-destructive behavior and more vulnerable to drug addiction than people who live lives with purpose.

The Western world didn't get religions that had a divide between the material and the divine world until Plato. Gods in Babylonian and early Greek religion were highly physical and almost the entire drama of life played out on this world with the after-life being a minor role. They also defied material things, for instance agriculture, water, their own cities, and of course their conquests. The material world was not the opposite of the spirtual world until you get to the New Testament.

For most of human history wars were fought entirly for material gain with aesetic moments always, being isolated pockets of society.

>through modern studies as well that shows that people who live life without meaning are more prone to self-destructive behavior and more vulnerable to drug addiction

How the hell do you measure "life with meaning" in a fucking study? You're a comedy act. Do they have some measurement of "meaning". Maybe they can also measure how 'one with the Divine' they are while they are at it.

Existentialists qqing is a 20th century phenomena. The very concept of 'yearning for meaning' is a new phenomena; a phenoma I think is for total losers. Both the people that 'have a meaning' and 'have no meaning' are soft-wristed weenies. People that go around needing 'meaning' are people that just havn't suffered nearly enough.

The term originates in America and was propped up by far-right uneducated ideologues, so that tells you all you need to know. You will never hear these terms from european far right that actually respects the working class movements.

In any case the left in the West right now is extremely pathetic, especially after the Syriza defeat. So it's very easy to make catch all terms that lump up economic marxism with the identity politics fringe lunatics, anarchists, and social democrats.

The fuck you on about.
Last time I checked up on Marx, western society didn't block Marxism but furthered it.

>They also defied material things, for instance agriculture, water, their own cities, and of course their conquests. The material world was not the opposite of the spirtual world until you get to the New Testament.

This post is baffling because you basically prove my point that the Divine is important in the role it plays in society and helping chart human actions.

>For most of human history wars were fought entirly for material gain with aesetic moments always, being isolated pockets of society.

Not really, both spiritual and material needs went hand in hand. In Ancient Mesopotamia it was standard practice to defile and ransack temples of your enemies, and sometimes transport statues of their gods to the temple of the victors gods in order to show superiority and submission.

>How the hell do you measure "life with meaning" in a fucking study? You're a comedy act. Do they have some measurement of "meaning". Maybe they can also measure how 'one with the Divine' they are while they are at it.

Right because everything needs a quantitative metric. This is why the modern day discipline of science is a joke.

>Existentialists qqing is a 20th century phenomena. The very concept of 'yearning for meaning' is a new phenomena; a phenoma I think is for total losers. Both the people that 'have a meaning' and 'have no meaning' are soft-wristed weenies. People that go around needing 'meaning' are people that just havn't suffered nearly enough.

Well I guess all those great thinkers of the past such as St. Augustine, De Tocqueville, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche were all wrong. I mean what the fuck do they know other than being fantastic and keen observers of human nature. But keep on pushing that nihilistic viewpoint, I'll let you get back to your self-destructive lifestyle as you slowly spiral down to addiction.

I can do it too

>Right because everything needs a quantitative metric.

You're the one saying that "studies have shown people without meaning X" you fucking idiot. You realize you said you that right? And now you're shit-talking that very thought process you engaged in last post. Retard.

It's like can't fucking parse what I'm saying: you're literally incapable of taking on a point of view where material and spirtual are not opposites or parsing concepts that are neither based on 'meaning' nor 'nihilism'. You've got this one literal paragim and anything outside is all Greek to you, so when trying to understand me or history all you can do is impose that view.

Also LOL at name dropping all those philosophers you've certainly never read.

>You're the one saying that "studies have shown people without meaning X" you fucking idiot. You realize you said you that right? And now you're shit-talking that very thought process you engaged in last post. Retard.

How difficult is it for you to grasp that not everything can be quantitatively measured? That qualitative observations can be made and are just as valid as their quantitative counterpart. To you nothing is valid if you can't put metrics on it.

>It's like can't fucking parse what I'm saying: you're literally incapable of taking on a point of view where material and spirtual are not opposites or parsing concepts that are neither based on 'meaning' nor 'nihilism'. You've got this one literal paragim and anything outside is all Greek to you, so when trying to understand me or history all you can do is impose that view.

I am capable of taking on other point of views but I don't give a shit to take on other point of views because I made a point and I intend to defend it, since you're having difficulties understanding what that point is I'll make it clear: Spirituality and the need for the Divine touch has always played an important role in shaping the course of society and how humans interact with the world.

>Also LOL at name dropping all those philosophers you've certainly never read.

It's painfully obvious that you've never read them, otherwise you wouldn't be dismissive of spirituality and the importance of meaning. Educate yourself fool.

Your still completly incapable of reading anything that isn't part of your view. Now I'm "dismissive of spirituality"

What your spouting has nothing to do with Nietzsche. He doesn't discuss 'meaning' and he wrote an entire book hammering away at material and spiritual being opposites, I've been paraphrasing off bits from it. So not only have you not read the man (I have) but you're thinking is against him. If that wasn't a big enough clue the fact that you name-dropped him in the same fucking list as Augustine was pretty obvious.

>Your still completly incapable of reading anything that isn't part of your view. Now I'm "dismissive of spirituality"

You are dismissive of spirituality through your dismissal of the importance of the divine touch, and the need of people to be a part of something greater.

>What your spouting has nothing to do with Nietzsche. He doesn't discuss 'meaning' and he wrote an entire book hammering away at material and spiritual being opposites, I've been paraphrasing off bits from it. So not only have you not read the man (I have) but you're thinking is against him. If that wasn't a big enough clue the fact that you name-dropped him in the same fucking list as Augustine was pretty obvious.

You're completely high, did you even read Zarathustra? Nietzsche was obsessed with the creation of new values and meaning in the problem caused by the removal of the divine origin of morals. Nietzsche was dismissive of religion and Christianity but realized the value that their moral system created, and was horrified at the idea of having nothing to replace it. And I'd like you to point out in our conversation where I said that material and spiritual were opposites.

No, you can't.....

If you refer to philosophy of culture (which in large part birthed the new left's policy on culture), that's not really connected to marxism and is terribly cancerous.
If you refer to the analysis of the "cultural superstructure" within marxist theory, that is terribly cancerous as well, but in a different way.
In fact, large parts of marxist theory deserve to be criticised.
The critique of capitalism is correct to a great extent, though.

Read the first chapter, "Politics of Amnesia".
inb4 >Eagleton
Yes. He's terrible. But it will at least give you an understanding of how cultural theory changed the discourse far away from the marxist framework and why that doesn't suit marxists at all.
rhinehartibenglish.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/1/0/22108252/terry-eagleton_after_theory.pdf

>Marxism is petty materialism
I prefer to think of Marxism as the methods to surpass our baser selves - to pull out of the never-ending cry of 'growth!' and allow ourselves to live a meaningful life.

>Capitalism and communism being materialistic makes the struggle between them a 'pseudo-conflict'
This literally makes no sense. By this logic, two people arguing over who owns a wallet found on the floor would be a 'pseudo-conflict', after all they are both arguing over a material concern.

Also, capitalism doesn't negate spirituality. Can you prove otherwise?

Especially how it gets conflated with postmodernism, when Marx is about as modernist as you can get.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

>DUDE I POSTED THE SAME PICTURE OF A FAT GUY IN A MAGA HAT AGAIN! THIS PROVES CULTURAL MARXISM DOESNT EXIST!
Really made me think. Why do cultural marxist pretend they dont exist, then will turn around and argue that white males need to check their privilege, Trans bullshit, and turd wave feminism?

Cultural Marxism is like a man without benis.

values=/=meaning. The concept of meaning is totally alien to Nietzsche's thought and vocabulary.

>by the removal of the divine origin of morals.
Yes, Nietzsche totally believed morality has a divine origin. That is precociously what he says in the Genealogy of Morality! Retard. Where do you get this shit? Seriously? Is this just coming out of your head or did you actually here this from someone?

>And I'd like you to point out in our conversation where I said that material and spiritual were opposites.

Your entire ranting has been that materialism has replaced spirituality, and that's bad. This is your entire fucking point.

>fat guy
>guy
It's a female-to-male transsexual. Biologically a woman.

>values=/=meaning. The concept of meaning is totally alien to Nietzsche's thought and vocabulary.

Wrong. Nietzsche was horrified of nihilism.

>Yes, Nietzsche totally believed morality has a divine origin. That is precociously what he says in the Genealogy of Morality! Retard. Where do you get this shit? Seriously? Is this just coming out of your head or did you actually here this from someone?

Right because he totally doesn't point out that the idea of God is where Christianity derives its moral system from. Did you even read the same author? Seriously read Nietzsche again because you're wrong about almost everything he's saying.

>Your entire ranting has been that materialism has replaced spirituality, and that's bad. This is your entire fucking point.

Nope, you made assumptions. Spirituality and idea that man is able to touch the divine is incredibly important for people as the soul needs to be fed. The materialistic viewpoint of the modern world rejects that part of humanity. And if we are to take Nietzsche's concept of the soul, as merely an extension of the material body, then to reject the spiritual aspect of the self is a form of self-denial.

What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself. Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"—namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom. Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities.

-Julius Evola

I am not espousing an "obscurantism" for the benefit of the "ruling classes"; as I have stated previously, I dispute the superiority and the rights of a merely economic class living in a materialistic fashion. Nevertheless, we need to side against the idea or myth of so-called social progress, which is another of the many pathological fixations of the economic era in general, and not the legacy of leftist movements alone. To this effect, the eschatological views of Marxism do not differ very much from the "Western" views of prosperity: both Weltanschauungen [worldviews] essentially coincide, as do their practical applications. In both Marxism and free-market economies we find the same materialistic, antipolitical, and social view detaching the social order and people from any higher order and higher goal, positing what is "useful" as the only purpose (understood in a physical, vegetative, and earthly sense); by turning the "useful" into a criterion of progress, the values proper to every traditional structure are inverted. In fact, we should not forget that the law, meaning, and sufficient reason for these structures have always consisted in references for man to something beyond himself and beyond the economy, wealth, or material poverty, all these things having only a secondary importance. Thus, it can legitimately be claimed that the so-called improvement of social conditions should be regarded not as good but as evil, when its price consists of the enslavement of the single individual to the productive mechanism and to the social conglomerate; or in the degradation of the State to the "State based on work," and the degradation of society to "consumer society"; or in the elimination of every qualitative hierarchy; or in the atrophy of every spiritual sensibility and every "heroic" attitude.
-Evola

>politically-entrenched communists with access to the minds of the impressionable youths are a boogieman but buying cheap goods at Walmart causes the destruction of society

material x in Hegels y
formula perfected for humans t.marx

Nope, Cultural Marxism is a real thing. The reason why it's not heard in Europe because Europe is already compromised politically. Unlike America where there is a complete hostility to Marxism because it's anathema to American values and that's why it was necessary for Marxism to come in from the backdoor of academia

Only one of those actually eliminated thousands of small businesses and the communities that revolved around them.

>Communists
>Not destroying small enterprises and communities
>mfw

That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

you're retarded. what businesses did herbert marcuse destroy by writing books and teaching classes

it was fdr that eliminated thousands of small businesses and centralized industry to support his socialistic programs and the war effort
>inb4 "fdr saved capitalism"

based irrelevant information bro