>/his/ - History & Humanities
Cultural Marxism / Frankfurt School
Is it real?
Are there actually people in influential positions pushing society towards particular goals, or is it just a diffuse ideology?
Asking on /his/ because there is slightly higher chance of a meaningful discussion.
>Is it real
Of course it's real.
>Are there actually people in influential positions pushing society towards particular goals
I would say yes, there's generally a neoliberal consensus amongst high politics and big business and it's in their interest to keep it that way
No. The Frankfurt school was a small group of theorists that had a small hand in the creation of what would metastasize into modern PC culture.
/pol/ freaks the fuck out and blames everything on them because most of them were Jews.
"Cultural Marxism" is a word invented by /pol/ to describe any intellectual that holds opinions they do not like. It's not a category anyone ascribes to themself.
Frankfurt school was a real thing but it's not what /pol/ told you. It wasn't a bunch of scheming villains inventing political correctness for the goal of destorying white culture. It was just a couple of intellectuals writing books and talking to each other. Like most post-modernists they were highly critical of the accepted world view, this included challenging conservative views as well as liberal views. They actually retired a lot of Marxist ideas and replaced them with Freudian ideas, their ideas tended to involve critiqueing society through the lens of psycho-analytics.
People that know nothing about how philosophy works freak out because they said the established narratives were wrong, this is what philosophy does though it questions norms. There's no 'secret agenda' with the Frankfurt philosophy, they wrote books and you can read them if you want to know their opinion.
Frankfurt school existed, and they defended their ideas.
They do not have any disciple in influential positions, and their ideology if they had one (one of their main concern was the criticism of ideology) is not influential even in a diffuse way.
Cultural marxism is a construct... Some sort of bin in which conservatives throw anything they don't like. It's not the ideology of the frankfurt school and it's not a meaningful label of a coherent ensemble of ideas and movements.
>I would say yes, there's generally a neoliberal consensus amongst high politics and big business and it's in their interest to keep it that way
What the fuck do this even mean. There's a bunch of libertarians saying that "you know what? Freud and Marx was right all along!"? Since when was libertarians part of high politics anyway?
>Cultural Marxism / Frankfurt School
For the love of God, people have to stop using the word Cultural Marxism. It isn't a real thing.
And if it was it would be retarded. Marxism litterary is Materialistic Hegelianism. Cultural Marxism, is Hegelianism. Meaning that Cultural Marxism to it's very core is a very conservative thing.
>"Cultural Marxism" is a word invented by /pol/ to describe any intellectual that holds opinions they do not like. It's not a category anyone ascribes to themself.
So is "Racism" with the left.
Regarding OP's question. Cultural Marxism does exist as an intellectual phenomenom. It all begins in the early XXth century, during this era, the main strain of Marxist philosophy was Orthodox Marxism, that saw itself as a scientific enterprise that discovered the objective truths of society and predicted the course of history accordingly, it's main proponent was Karl Kautsky. According to their theories, in the event of an European war, the working-class of the continent would rise up in revolution and establish communism.
1914 happened, and the predicted revolution didn't come, so Orthodox Marxism was discredited in return, it died in the West with the exception of a short revival under Althusser in France during the 1960s. Across Europe, intellectuals tried to answer this crisis within Marxism, Lenin came with the notion of vanguard party and did his thing in Russia, which in turn created Marxism-Leninism and the whole Soviet enterprise. Meanwhile, in Western Europe, intellectuals such as Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci answered to the failure of Orthodox Marxism to predict the revolution with the notion that the revolution couldn't happen until the communists had built cultural hegemony.
>Are there actually people in influential positions pushing society towards particular goals, or is it just a diffuse ideology?
>Cultural Marxism is a word invented by /pol/ to describe anything they don't like
This is untrue. It doesn't describe "anything the /pol/ hive mind dislikes". You're right that the terminology may be off, but at its essence they are correct. Social sciences at institutions if higher education have certainly been high-jacked and directed towards the degradation and dismantling of western social institutions (whether just or not). There is so much falsehood and deceit in these studies that it boggles the mind. We have tenured professors, leaders in their fields, making outrageous claims and getting away with it.
I understand if people don't want to use /pol/ terminology or memes, but come on! This one is too real to ignore.
They dispensesed with the notion of transcendental truth and ascribed a functional character to all human knowledge. That was closer to young Marx, instead of his later (and Engel's) positivism. For them, praxis signifies the whole of man's part in history, the value of intellectual production as an aspect of that whole is to be measured by the mind's ability to express changing historical situations, and not by the correspondence between some objective universe and the description of it. This Marxism as a philosophy of historical praxis, treating it as a concept in terms of which all aspects of human life should be interpreted, including intellectual activity and its product was thus opposed to the scientistic ideology that dominated Marxism in earlier days. It influenced a whole school of Marxist intellectuals, that include the Frankfurt School and more recently Ernesto Laclau, that use "revolutionary praxis" to instrumentalize all kinds of social and cultural struggles outside the class struggle for the purpose of building cultural hegemony.
And that includes editing the Wikipedia in order to say that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory, and saying it doesn't exist on /his/. These are all examples of "Praxis" in action.
>1914 happened and the revolution didn't come
Ummm... Russia 1917?
Also they tried to make that revolution happen in post-war Germany and were put down by armed citizens. See pic related.
I understand such memes are frowned upon here, but it's relevant to the subject of the thread and to anons post. You simply can't understand modern history if you don't understand certain ethno-religious dimensions, if you catch my drift.
The use of the word shows a profound ignorance of how philosophy works.
There is 'cultural Marxism' but there is also 'cultural Platoism' 'Cultural Aristotliasm' 'Cultural Nietzhianism' 'Cultural Machivailianism' and 'Cultural Stirnerism'. The idea that philosophers influence intellectual and shape society isn't exactly new. People do not even need to read the philosophers to be influenced by them, philosophy creeps into all aspects of society, not just politics.
>They dispensesed with the notion of transcendental truth and ascribed a functional character to all human knowledge
No actually. The idea that there is no transcendental truth is way older than the Frankfurts. You can find examples of it in Nietzsche, and before that in Kierkegaard and Hegel.
You are just proving my point that "cultural Marxism" is an umbrella term for anything conservatives hate. Apparently there was cultural Marxism before Karl Marx is born when Hegel told us that 'truth' is the result of a dialect and each culture makes their own version. The idea of absolute truth was abounded around 200 years ago after Plato and Aristotle stopped being the kings of philosophy. Transcendental truth only makes sense if you believe in some sort of Form. Without the Form theory objects merely exist as they are and the only truth that exists is perspective.
neoliberalism =/= libertarianism.
for more see: david harvey, a brief history of neoliberalism
there is a great chapter on the slow, long-game rise of neoliberal ideology (initiated by Hayek and others) in new book Inventing the Future by Srnicek and Williams ~
>This is untrue. It doesn't describe "anything the /pol/ hive mind dislikes". You're right that the terminology may be off, but at its essence they are correct. Social sciences at institutions if higher education have certainly been high-jacked and directed towards the degradation and dismantling of western social institutions (whether just or not). There is so much falsehood and deceit in these studies that it boggles the mind. We have tenured professors, leaders in their fields, making outrageous claims and getting away with it.
The universities aren't far left. You and the rest of their critics are just too far right.
>Le eternal joo
Yes, jews concentrate a lot of degeneracy and decadence per capita thru history, but cultural marxism is just that. Not a hidden agenda, not some plan for mind control of the white people, but a reaction within marxism itself to the percieved failures of both orthodox and leninist marxism in the inter-war era.
Take off your tinfoil.
I'll also add this. Truth as an absolute instead of a perspective is actually the liberal position. If values are relative you cannot blame white people for all their wars and slavery. Because these people would be operating under a perspective and have different values and entirly different values of truth. Relativism means that each culture's world view is correct for their time. Proggessivists, who are the new liberals, are not relativists. They believe in an absolute truth. Equality for them is a value that transcends all culture and perspective. To them it's not mere opinion equality is a correct but it's an absolute truth of the unvierse.
Only if you do believe in a transcendental truth can you say "all slave owners in all times were wrong" because you are implying "slavery is wrong" is a universial truth transcends perspective.
/pol/ is so out of it they do not realize the conservatives are now the relativists and the liberals are the ones that believe in absolute truth.
If you want to see how modernism has become a Liberal view and post-modernism is the new conservative view read this. http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html
This is the current state of conservative intellectualism. It's using relativism and post-modernity to dismantle liberal ideas about absolute truth.
>But what actually was/is their worldview,
A history of Marxism.
*Karl Marx writes his theories, using Hegel's philosophy as the basis.
*His ideas are taken at face value and his ideas are applied all over the world
*It ends in disaster with stuff like Stalin
*The intellectuals are disenchanted with Marxism realizing it doesn't work
*The world has changed so that his are not even releavant anymore. Those that own the means of production are no longer wealthy (see small bussiness owners) and labor theory makes no sense.
*The Frankfurt school gives Marxism an injection of Freduism. The new Marxism looks at the psychological reasons for capitalism.
*From this Lacan enters the scene telling people that social forces fufill the role of the Super Ego and control the various Egos (or individuals). Society is not individuals freely making choices but individuals who are unconscious agents of culture.
*Several followers of his philosophy attack both conservative and liberal ideology saying both are agents that seek to control the individual. They accuse both the liberal and conservative ideas of being self-serving and against the common good. Ideas about racial entity, political and other liberal projects are now considered just as much a threat to the communist dream as captilism itself. Marxism is now completely divorced from the traditional liberal scene. Even old ideas about Marxism are now discredited as being just another agent of the super ego.
Again /pol/tards just call 'cultural marxist' to anyone they hate. The modern Marxist intellectuals see political correctness as one of the biggest threats to their goal (Zivek talks about this a lot for instance).
The universities are FALSE left. I personally am a Radical Socialist, a member of the True Left.
>it's just concentration of capital and decadence
It's true that they concentrate capital in their hands but they also act on their religion politically. Zionism is an example of this as is their involvement in false leftism.
Base of the party shifted from centered around southern planters, with ethnic white allies, to based around Ethnic Whites, with southern allies.
The other reason, and you can see it in that huge shift in southern democrats, is that's the point where the ball really gets rolling on the civil rights movement. People tend to focus on the 60s, when it came to a head, but the 20s was the tipping point.
The 20s was when there was a shift to, at least in some form of the abstract, improvement of 'the nego's condition'. This was still kept carefully in the framework of white supremacy, but this is when there's no longer the immediate weight of reconstruction hanging over the south's head, and the last of people who were adults during the Civil War begin dying off.
Zizek is not every Marxist intellectuals. Plenty of them see the value of using "political correct" as a discourse to build a revolutionary coalition.
Pic related. The most influential Marxist thinker since Marcuse.
>Those that own the means of production are no longer wealthy (see small bussiness owners) and labor theory makes no sense.
If you're this fucking stupid, go read Mandel's Late Capitalism.
I think the idea of cultural Marxism, at its core, is just Marxism applied to culture rather than economics: there is an oppressive social class and an oppressed social class. The oppressed social class should revolt and cast off their oppressors. This is the idea driving shit like Black Lives Matter.
What /pol/ thinks is that the above is not a genuine social movement that spontaneously arose, but rather that it was created for the purposes of advancing the interests of a select group of people. A conspiracy theory, in other words.
So, >>518965, it's inaccurate to say Cultural Marxism is what was made up by /pol/. Rather, the *conspiracy theory* of Cultural Marxism, that posits it's a planned occurrence for the benefit of the conspirators, is what /pol/ made up.
The problem is that the two tend to be associated with each other so often that some people can't see the difference between them. So whenever someone hears "cultural marxism" they disregard the speaker as a conspiratard, and likewise, when tinfoil hatters like Glenn Beck want to talk about the idea of a communist plot for world domination, they use the same damn word.
>Plenty of them see the value of using "political correct" as a discourse to build a revolutionary coalition.
That would be an extremely difficult position to hold. Even Karl Marx himself was against the idea of racial identity. The whole idea of people uniting as fellow workers only makes sense if their loyalty is to the identity of the 'workers'. If they are going to start giving special preference to their own race, their own gender, or any other identity movement than it all falls apart.
It's important to realize that Marxism is a philosophy that is constantly failing and so it's always being reinterpreted. So old models of it are simply not part of the intellectual scene because they recognize that the old model failed to succeed (as opposed to the public who are too stupid to understand this and just shout about how we 'never tried true communism): this leads to one of two choices for the intellectual, either he accepts that Marxism is not viable and drops it (which was a very common thing, many major thinkers such as Baudrillard are post-Marxist) or he has to seek out a reinvention of Marxism with the hope that his better mouse-trap will work.
Zivek's brand is the newest mouse-trap.
>many major thinkers such as Baudrillard are post-Marxist
Don't fall for it. They are still commie, remember praxis theory. The purpose of philosophy is to change the world, not to interpret it, according to Marx. So a Marxist thinker can abandon everything that is part of the core of Marxism and still be a Marxist because he clings to a revolutionary communist position.
>So a Marxist thinker can abandon everything that is part of the core of Marxism and still be a Marxist because he clings to a revolutionary communist position.
And how, precisely chap, does dissimulation at this level drive mass proletarian praxis forward?
>the intellectuals that openingly criticize Marxist ideas are secretly Marxist themself
and this is why you guys are part of a conspiracy theory.
I've already explained this. The Progressives have a completely different agenda than the Marxists. Not every group you hate is working together like they are the fucking Legion of Doom. And there are many faces in the intellectual scene. Baudrillard is neither Marxist nor progressive, he saw politics as a pointless carnival where progress no longer is possible, the whole thing had been turned into entertainment where things only have symbolic meaning and no relationship to the real world anymore. (He'd probably tell us Trump is going to win because he is the most entertaining clown in the circus).
An unfounded paranoid delusion.
I'd call them class traitors, but they're all bourgeois.
>Are there actually people in influential positions pushing society towards particular goals
Always. And people in uninfluential positions. That's how society works. It is a clash of interests. Look to FOX News or BBC for a start.
>Marxism litterary is Materialistic Hegelianism.
Time for you to read Althusser on what Marxism is, you'll find it, "exciting."
> so Orthodox Marxism was discredited in return, it died in the West with the exception of a short revival under Althusser in France during the 1960s.
This is tenuous as fuck. Althusser was PCF through and through. Were the tankies Kautskites?
>Meanwhile, in Western Europe, intellectuals such as Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci answered to the failure of Orthodox Marxism to predict the revolution with the notion that the revolution couldn't happen until the communists had built cultural hegemony.
This is a pisspoor reading of Lukacs who sees cultural totalisation of the proletariat proceeding through the vanguard party in History and Class consciousness.
We have talked before about your eisegesis of Gramsci. Gramsci's march through the institutions is a march through the institutions of the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie, and is about recohering the soccer clubs and pubs of the class into a total class phenomena for SHOOTING THE RICH. It is not about epochal change. Wars of position, for Gramsci, are about class power, not bourgeois institutions.
Stop reading Gramsci through the Eurocommunising PCI in the 1970s.
Is a class phenomena, not a party phenomena. Bourgeois intellectuals can't take part in praxis. The only intellectuals who can are Gramsci's "organic" intellectuals. Praxis is a collective phenomena, not an individual one.
>shit i didnt think i would see somone reference this. his ideas on long waves are very interesting
If you're interested in Kondratieff waves, try "The Great Wave" about the late medieval / early modern price shift.
Yea it's all about Jews degrading and dismantling established civilization to make sure no one (or no nation / organized entity) is strong enough to resist their Messiah when he comes.
I'm not even a reactionary or a racist, I just call it as it is.
Yeah but thinking that cultural marxism is some sort of jewish front is far fetched. In fact, jews probably are behind ultra capitalist conservative groups. Think about the chicago school and its fair number of jews or alan dershowitz or henry kissinger
Yeah more conspiracy retard shit.
I already explained how the ideas you think are a "marxist conspiracy" existed before Marx was even born; the relatvity of values, the idea that transcendent truths do not exist only interpretations, etc.. Another annon says these ideas can be found in the Socratic dialogues.
But hey why actually study philosophy and see how ideas evolved when we can look at infographs about Jews?
Museums are private institutions. News outlets are private institutions. This is really the only thing that needs to be said in response to:
"Are there actually people in influential positions pushing society towards particular goals"