campusreform.org
>Students at the University of Pennsylvania removed a portrait of Shakespeare from a prominent location in the school’s English department after complaining that he did not represent a diverse range of writers.
It's like we're living in a dystrophic authoritarian nightmare world
You should be conniving on how to use your peers' gullibility and susceptibility to media influence to your advantage. Gain a position of influence over ideas and rule them like the drones they are. You could even swear to use your sway benevolently, if that's your thing.
>we are such stuff as dreams are made on
really shakespeare? couldn't thing of a better line?
No single portrait can represent a diverse range of writers. That's not the function of a portrait.
As much a misnomer as it is, Kaczynski was dead right about cultural Marxism.
*dystopic
I don't know why I wrote that wrong. Maybe it was autocorrect. In a way dystrophic even fits.
>tfw conservative writer in 2 0 1 6
It physically hurts to exist.
Don't worry, user. Conservatives in 2016 are in the exact same position they were at in the beginning of the 20th Century, and that didn't stop Chesterton from being fantastic. You can too.
*dystopian
what is wrong with me today. Consider it a bump.
it's funny, I look down on people who go to lesser Ivies, even though I go to a second-tier liberal arts college
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
>baseless fabric
That is the stuff as we are made on. Comprehend the cynicism in that.
They should've replaced it with Andrew Lang or someone like that. I don't see how an African American would itself represent diversity.
Maybe someone like Ishmael Reed, if they were to insist on the point. But Audre Lorde? Political poetry?
You're actually really lucky. There's a huge market for shit that's not SJW, and we're in the middle of a full-blown drought.
Just find an entrepreneurial publisher who knows a money faucet when he sees one.
Wasn't Shakespeare black though?
Along with Mozart?
Marxist logic:
Privileged = oppressors
Whites are the most privileged
Blacks are the least privileged
The way to fix oppression is to destroy the privilege of privileged groups.
In the mind of an SJW, the best action that you can possibly take in the name of equality is to destroy something white and replace it with something black.
Of course, if you know anything about Marxist history, you know how well this turns out. For everything that a Marxist builds (poorly), he destroys twenty things (which were better built). The end result is, ironically, poverty and oppression for everybody at the hands of a few elites.
t. Someone who doesn't know shit about Marxism (nor """""cultural marxism"""""")
He might not know shit about orthodox marxism, but he's more or less correct about its 20th century incarnation.
It's a stream of disdain for the white working class that begins, whether you want to call it cultural Marxism or not, with people like Adorno
>complaining about a PORTRAIT not representing DIVERSITY
What
that's just about spot on for the contemporary leftists though
we can see you in other threads guys
please go back to your home board
Beethoven was black. He even invented Jazz.
"""we"""
(((we)))
Marx would wander around the streets with his children reciting Shakespeare.
I think most Marxists are actually OK with the white working class.
They did the right thing
Heh. You weren't around in Britain when they voted for Brexit, I take it.
Is this somehow meant to refute that cultural Marxism is a misnomer, or fun Marx fact #347?
Why does /pol/ always try to tie this to Adorno? A significant chunk of his writings were about how jazz was too degenerate.
This. He was a visionary:
>22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
>15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
That just says even more about Marxist elitism.
Here they are, finally, the worthy sons of Marinetti!
They sided with the working class, but a different working class.
Some liberals taking down a picture of Shakespeare has nothing to do with Marx or the boogeyman of cultural Marxism.
It's bizarre. You go on twitter or tumblr and see liberals and sjws bitching about "brocialists" and how they trying to hijack progressive politics for their outdated "class reductionist" class politics. Then you go on either of the chans and you'll see right-wingers pointing at the Clinton supporting sjws actively sabotaging all attempts at class politics and call them "cultural marxists".
There's no grand conspiracy. They're just liberals - useful idiots whose politics reify existing inequalities by focusing on mundane first world shit.
There is literally nothing wrong with being a brocialist.
I've only posted in one other thread today and it has nothing to do with this topic. I'm not a trump supporter and I voted againts brexit.
It's worth widening this conversation and considering the history of ideas that have led to this shit. And if they dont get it from Marx, who do they get it from.
There's two answers:
1) what /pol/acks call cultural marxism. Why pretend the focus on this is illegitimate? The point is that Adorno's attack on the culture of the working class and his obsession with peddling aristocratic art, started a shift in the left tthat has led to it, now, becoming detached from class conflict.
2) the far more daging influence of course, has been Nietzsche, who I admire as a thinker very much, but the influence he's enjoyed on the left wing has been more disasterous than his influence on the right. This notion of seeing literally everything through the lens of power for example, and a very cynical vision of power where as the other user pointed out, the only solution is for "the other side" to win and dominate the previous power-group.
If the portrait this student chose to represent diversity was black, do you think it would be a working class black or some middle class black slam poet who has absolutely no notion of what being an ordinary black is like (inb4 all black people are equally oppressed and class has nothing to do with it). Of course it would be latter, because nothing intimidates these people more than opening up class conversation.
The modern left has fragmented into neo-aristocratic interest groups. There is not a shred of interest in the working class to be found. In fact, most of them want to exterminate the culture of the workers. Think about the male ideal as proposed by the modern "leftist": is it closer to a working class ideal or is it precisely the spitting image of the historical androgynized nobleman dandy, obsessed with a cultural codes and manners. There ia a correct time to compliment women and if you are a member of this new aristocracy you knownwhen to do so etc. This is precisely a method of differentiation and distancing.
So please don't tell me to go back to /pol/ while representing the frankly fascist interests of the neo-aristocracy.
*on the subject of section one, ask yourself whether On The Waterfront is a more successful piece of socialist art than Pierrot le Fou or Breathless. I think the answer is fairly obvious and clarifies just what's wrong with adorno's approach.
You can thank the jews for this. And their liberal mental offspring.
Agreed, and I think brocialist is an unfair epithet. These are people committed to universal aims, following the writings of enlightenment figures such as Rousseau, and who view identity politics as a divisive neoliberal project that only reinforces the inequities the SJWs are supposedly railing against.
>The point is that Adorno's attack on the culture of the working class
That's a horrible misreading of Adorno.
Adorno's attack wasn't on "the culture of the working class" it was on capitalism and the culture it produced. Under capitalism music, art, fashion, food and so on are reduced to mere commodities that are streamlined and mechanically reproduced to the point that they are mere copies of copies with zero originality. Pop culture is not an expression of creativity but instead hollow and cynically produced to generate profit.
>The modern left has fragmented into neo-aristocratic interest groups. There is not a shred of interest in the working class to be found.
That's because Marxist/class politics do not exist in the modern left. It's just liberalism. Capitalism has subverted leftist politics and reduced it to another commodity to consume and toss aside when done.
>Some liberals taking down a picture of Shakespeare has nothing to do with Marx or the boogeyman of cultural Marxism.
Their reasoning behind taking it down is textbook social marxism as described by Kaczynski. "Sjw" is almost a direct paraphrasal of "social marxist", hence I said it is a misnomer. No grand conspiracy theory is necessarily implied by Ted.
>cultural Marxism
Neo-nazis go to /pol/
>it's another american false consciousness episode
I think the word "brocialist" should be reclaimed, as it suggest a fraternity in socialism, which is a beautiful idea.
Why not actually read what Kaczynski defines as social Marxism before jumping to the radical conclusion that I'm a neo-nazi. You're no different from the worst /pol/tards who hear a buzz word and retort with anti-intellectual "fuck you cuck" non-arguments.
It's not a horrible misreading of adorno, its just a hostile reading. His view of the interchangeabilty of parts in working class art is predicated on a complete misunderstanding of the culture he was criticizing and an ignorance of the idea of collective art, such as the ballad, which, yes, does involve repetitive elements, but has been the norm in non-aristocratic art for far longer than capitalism has existed.
>not an expression creativity but hollow and cynically produced
Romantic cult of the artist nonsense. This was adorno's problem too.
ah you never fail to make me laugh lit
>one writer did not represent a diverse range of writers
Can't argue with that.
But Shakespeare represents Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Queen Elizabeth and others.
>America
Can you yanks please stop exporting your """culture""". I've already had it with graffiti, shallow pop, lawless rap, entertainment news and fast food, that was all already bad enough, but now it's definitely time to stop, okay?
No, and yes.