Are there any books on Cultural Marxism? The further I go into researching it, the more dead ends I hit. Either that, or any information on it has been retconned by Wiki-fascists claiming that it's a conspiracy theory.
Maybe the reason you are having such difficulty is because it actually, in all earnest, really is just a bizarre conspiracy theory crafted by fringe lunatics on the internet as a scapegoat for everything they see as wrong with the contemporary sociopolitical ecosystem.
Just a guess.
What I find funny is that people who think Cultural Marxism is real point to theorists like Adorno as examples... despite the fact he was so elitist he thought jazz music was degenerate and that the radio was rotting the minds of his time with senseless entertainment.
No such thing as cultural Marxism. It's a boogieman that prevents conservatives from going back to the "good old days." Marxism proper is about only one thing: class as the primary factor determining historical outcome.
A surprising well researched hit piece. Also, if you want to do the work to deconstruct the frankfurt school:
Are there any peer reviewed books on the historicity of dragons? The further I go into researching it the more dead ends I hit. I'm starting to think the wikipedia fascists are hiding dragon history from me.
I've heard the term "Marxism" thrown around quite a lot before I really knew what it meant, and thought it really stood for something insidious. But seeing this chart, with it's insinuation that taking down capitalism is something bad, I don't even know what to say.
Who the fuck supports capitalism and thinks it's a good thing?
>Who the fuck supports capitalism and thinks it's a good thing?
The Danes, New Zealand, the Swiss, Canada.
You can do it right, whereas I would really encourage you to point to a purely marxist society that can go more than a few years without decimating its population.
I'd describe it as outmoded pre-existing systems of governance failing to properly deal with the implications and consequences of a rapidly globalised world.
Leftism and liberalism are conflated in the developed world, but they're not the same thing. Unless you think the USSR and North Korea are examples of liberal regimes.
It's not particularly odd, really. They see that there is something wrong with modern society, or that power is being wield against the interest of the common man, but the reasoning behind what is causing it is completely opposite
Best way I can think of describing it is, when the social machine breaks down, one person wants a new machine, and the other wants to kick out the person they think is pulling the levers.
Retconned it sure has. True, there was a shift in marxism from materialism to idealism. There's no contemporary marxist with knowledge of STEM and economics who discusses the changes in telecom etc. But instead marxists have written about everything from poker to kite flying.
However, this can in no way be compared to the spook that some intellectuals in the interbellum age laid out a master plan that paid off *decaces* later.
In short the "cultural marxism"-spook is only the n:th way to blame everything on the jews, albeit in a more "intellectual" manner.
Nice Naomi Klein conspiracy. And I can see why:
>Really simple, primitive people like their poetry to be as ... artificial and remote from the language of everyday affairs as possible. We reproach the eighteenth century with its artificiality. But the fact is that Beowulf is couched in a diction fifty times more complicated and unnatural than that of [Pope's poem] Essay on Man.
Adolus Huxley, Those Barren Leaves (1925)
>study frankfurt school
>there is truth to some of the occult aspects
>talk to left winger about it
>NO THAT'S ANTISEMITISM PEOPLE AREN'T COMPLEX AT ALL THEY WERE JUST WORKADAY ACADEMICS WITH CULTURAL THEORIES
>talk to right winger about it
>NO IT'SMUCH WORSE THAN THAT IT'S ACTUALLY 5000% SUPER-OCCULT JEWSPIRACY JEWDOWN JEWZONE
>tfw you can't talk to anyone about the gray jewdi without them turning it into light side vs. dark side argument
People are retarded like that. So what if they studied occultism? Read some of Walter Benjamin's texts and you will instantly realize why Jews are predisposed to philosophy: even their most ancient religious texts include problems concerning the value of bare life, affirmation, law and subversion, etc.
It's not, as far as I know, like the Frankfurt School would meet every Tuesday to bathe in the blood of slaughtered children.
True communism has never been attempted in the sense that "true communism" means a society without a state rather than a state capitalism. In a Cold War scenario it would probably be impossible anyway since the Soviet Union, as well as all of it's allies, were justifying all their actions using a state of emergency against invading capitalists. You might say that true communism is unpractical because such states of exception will always pop up and there can never be a right time for it, or give any other explanation, but don't confuse this fact with a no true Scotsman type argument.
Most philosophical and political discussions are just people sharing conflated terminology, as if talking so generally is somehow indicative of a reality. People constantly throwing around the words 'liberal' this and 'leftist' that on these boards are not adequately describing anything. It's just pseudo-political, intellectual bullshit. Individuals are more complicated than this and when talking about large groups everything is about money.
>put all thoughts of a calculated conspiracy aside for second
>think about the fact that society under the economic paradigm is consistently re-adjusting itself like a computer to maximise efficiency of productive output and profit.
>think about the fact that education systems in the west are financial institutions.
>think about the fact that some people are paying to go to college to be taught marxism, critical theory etc.
>people are paying to go to college and learn in detail how fucked up everything is and how the west fucked everything for everyone.
>international students are coming in and paying to learn how fucked the west is and how it fucked everything for everyone before angrily returning to their home countries.
>western culture undermined?????????
someone shouting conspiracy stems from perhaps irrational speculation as to the reason WHY we should be taught this stuff, and WHY a system so geared toward maximising profit would be elaborating to its people its own failings?
>it creates an entire generation who hate their national identity
>have an increased dissatisfaction and tension toward the political system and society as a whole
>this could ultimately lead to civil unrest, which would mean the financial elite could easily succeed in consolidating more power through inducing violent revolution, rather than the delicious gradual one we actually need
>just in time for China to ripen fully into a delicious capitalist playground for an elite.
People thinking like this is because the statement that 'everything is shit' is just so in your face these days, to the point that it's systematically taught to the population, it's not even trying to be hidden anymore
+ Israel seems to get to do whatever the fuck it wants
People are confused in this thread that western culture and capitalism are the same thing. The cultural marxist conspiracy is not about getting rid of capitalism, but rather the idea that the west can be framed for all the failings of capitalism
Even Marx himself wrote about transitional governments, and that's where the theory begins to fall apart.
They never make the transition. They stall out in the "authoritarian despots redistributing wealth and normalizing extreme poverty" phase that we've seen every nominally communist system embrace.
Stateless societies only work at the band or tribe level, you literally have to know everyone in your community by name and treat outsiders as subhuman to live a productive and 'lawless' lifestyle.
You're better off looking into "critical theory" especially when it originates from feminist, philosopher, or social science angles.
If cultural marxism really is some kind of ivory tower zeitgeist, you can't reasonably expect many publications to stick their neck out and publicly criticize so many institutions at once. You have to go to original documents and apply logic to their writings.
Like how the situations in Cologne is the logical conclusion of cultural relativism, and the initial silence from western outlets on the matter (except to criticize other westerners for racism of course) is indicative of, at the very least, an unspoken agreement to not apply reason or logical inquiry in this direction.
It's always been the case that progressive agendas are framed as decadent by the old guard, who's power is often framed by traditional values. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
But the idea of cultural marxism has been around for quite a while, and many of the things ascribed to it do not really have anything to do with each other or contradict each other. I mean, sure, if something is profitable enough for someone powerful enough to achieve it he will try doing so; this much is a general rule. But no one sat down at one point in the 50s and thought "Yeah, well, let's destroy America at some point in the future.", it is just too complicated of an idea that someone would just plan it.
It's a term of abuse for Frankfurt school critical theory. Just read the original stuff. It's not nearly as much an influence on SJW-ism as is commonly claimed. It is clearly anti-fascist but the authors were well aware of the possibility of left-fascism and weren't proponents of identity politics.
Saying that Jewish esotericism is prevalent in Western intellectual circles doesn't really mean anything because the Kabbalah/Zohar is one of the most co-opted texts in existence. Nearly every major Western occult group co-opted ideas from it or ripped it off and pretended it was theirs outright.
It's mostly just a case of milquetoast medieval Christians seeing this secret text they weren't allowed to read and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. Then the influence spread over the centuries.
so a bunch of rich jewish guys decided to empower women and non-white people because it was somehow in their best interest to destroy the west? that's the conspiracy? I don't see the point, what's to gain?
so you don't see any gain in seizing control of western civilization? how come there are never any calls for "diversity" in leaders of the federal reserve? 100% jewish since its inception...but there are calls for "diversity" in any field controlled by white people, basically it's a way to dislodge the protestants and catholics from their respective industries and then take them over
He thinks there is a secret society of Jewish Third Wave Feminists that edit posts that will reveal the truth regarding an enormous, closed knit conspiracy to cynically undermine fundamental western values by replacing them with cosmopolitan homosexual feminine weakness.
But you can argue that people sat down as far back as the 10s, 20s, 30s, whatever and were plotting the destruction of America, it depends what you believe and no one knows the truth.
Regardless if it was the result of a conscious effort by a group of people or not,
>people are paying to go to college to be taught marxism, critical theory etc.
>people are paying to go to college and learn in detail how fucked up everything is and how the west fucked everything for everyone.
look at hillary clintons campaign, she is a weak willed white hill billy whose entire campaign is run by jews from wasserman-schultz at the DNC, to Kissenger for foreign policy advice, to Soros funded superPACS, the only thing in the clinton campaign that isn't jewish is clinton herself...find a non-jew in the top of the clinton campaign, go ahead...hard for jews to take over an evangelicals campaign like cruz, or a self funded businessman who doesn't need the backing of zionist banks like trump...but a bumpkin like hillary is easy pickings.
Among many, many other things that these people don't realize, it's that "muh western values" aren't Western at all in that they mostly stem from Christianity, which comes from the middle east and frames itself as a sequel to Judaism. The idea that Jews are some sort of devious masterminds who control the world from behind the scenes stems from the Christian inferiority complex of having to be the dominant cultural force while being founded on a text that contradicts the fundamental ideas of Christianity.
people who actually, you know, do hard work and don't want the precious fruits of their labor to be taken away by biggubmint and redistributed away to undeserving dindus and crackheads
>yeah but catholics blame the WASP's for progressivism even being in the US
spare me the bullshit, puritans are a hell of lot less corrupt and degenerate than that despotic pagan cult in rome
Then explain to me how McCarthy wasn't abusing the power of the state and restricting civil liberties based on his own paranoia, and how is this different than whatever boogeyman you cunts think of as "gommenism 8DDDD"
>implying McCarthy wasn't completely justified
>implying the reds weren't waiting for the right time to pounce on America's jugular and drag us all into stalinist hell with no civil liberties at all
What total lying horseshit. Tell that to union tradesmen who can easily charge 50-70 dollars an hour. My landscaper charges 75 an hour, 1 hour minimum and has about 400 clients throughout the month.
Just because burger flipping dindus arent getting a living wage doing a job meant as a transitory position for young people doesnt mean "No one gets paid for their work under capitalism". And in the European social democracies (which are still capitalists) NEETs and underpaids get excellent benefits from the govt.
What total garbage
instead of hating on the great results the protestant ethic brings into people's lives why don't u try it? catholicism and marxism turned u to a resultful neet, now let jesus turn u into a successful person
cuz history is just old things that hapend loooooooooooooooooool not like it has any influence on clapstan notions of communism up to this day
honestly, you people call your leftists "liberals", that should tick some alarms
>My landscaper charges 75 an hour, 1 hour minimum and has about 400 clients throughout the month.
damn bro u shud just a hire a mexican, u can get them at the home depot parking lot for $100 a day...just kidding, thanks for hiring an american, sir
the jobs were created with the purpose of making cheeseburgers to sell to paying customers...if some dumbass tries to make a career out of brainless work fit for a teen, that's their free choice
>missing the point this hard
Capitalism is predicated on the idea of profits and competition between private enterprises. It's easy to dupe retards like you into thinking this means FREEDUM OPPORTUNATAY and JOB CREASHUN, but in actuality anyone doing the work and not owning the company doing it is being paid at a rate that's disproportionately low compared to the revenue they're generating for their employer. This is true for ALL jobs except high end managerial positions.
if being a CEO was that easy, y'all communist white guilt hipsters better spend ur time majoring in bussiness or CS instead of reading marx and whining about muh capitalism maaan... wait
that's because you're using someone else's capital: their brand, their promotions, their product line, their property...feel free to open your own burger joint and keep all the moniez to urself if u so exploited
if being a CEO was easy Steve Jobes and Jeff Bezos wouldn't be the only CEOs worth a damn this generation, it turns out running a billion dollar global corporation is a fucking 24/7 responsibility with very high stakes
I live in a nearly 100% white area, and he does a really good job.
I made the choice to work in retail with commission in highschool and i did pretty well
People who put up capital and assume risk of failure should get a larger portion of the pie. And dont tell me communism actually gives ownership of production to the workers, it makes everyone poor except the ultra elite and forces them to work or be "re-educated". Talk about exploitation.
want to see the difference a good CEO vs a shit CEO makes just compared Facebook to Myspace, or Facebook to Twitter...the irony is bezos, jobs, zuckerberg never went to business school
read the torah bro, probs the most evil book ever written.... you'll know were the frankfurters the neocons and the bilderbergers got all their tricks every last of them really, and the worst part is they are winning... goyim means cattle, just so you know what they got in stock for us
i'll check them out, if u like stories of privileged decadents running businesses into the gutter check out "losing the signal" which is a story of how blackberry lost the mobile market
>People who put up capital and assume risk of failure should get a larger portion of the pie. And dont tell me communism actually gives ownership of production to the workers, it makes everyone poor except the ultra elite and forces them to work or be "re-educated". Talk about exploitation.
How is that different from the current wealth and income inequality in America? There's no way to rationalize a system where most of the wealth is owned by the top 0.1% as not being exploitative without coming off like a delusional retard or a paid stooge.
Anyone calling Adorno a "cultural Marxist" has clearly never read The Culture Industry or his treatises on music. Adorno was a Hegelian, a musical elitist and a defender of tradition with a soft spot for Nietzsche.
I have never read The Authoritarian Personality, nor have I had much interest in doing so. (It seemed like a distraction from his properly philosophical works, and was probably done out of obligation.) I do not doubt that he missteps in his prejudices.
But I nevertheless insist that anyone who quickly dismisses "The Culture Industry," Aesthetic Theory, Prisms, Notes to Literature or The Philosophy of New Music are depriving themselves the richest (and, indeed, most satisfyingly elitist) writings on Western art after Ruskin. Even through the dense prose his awe and love of Mozart, Goethe and, particularly, Beethoven can be felt.
1 of 2
This is what has always perplexed me about the rights' understanding of the Frankfurt School. Adorno, at every step in his career, lamented and deeply criticized the use of music and film as methods of controlling individuals, which is what he derisively dubbed the "culture industry" -- this is what he saw jazz and Hollywood as doing as much as Stalin did, and he disliked both for it equally. It was a vulgarization of individual experience, which reaches its highest point in, e.g., a Beethoven symphony, where every moment is determined by internal and "tragic" necessity which is, by that very token, the realization of true freedom; by contrast the verse-chorus-verse of a pop song is a forced abstraction into which structurally meaningless differences are plugged in, it is "shallow" and is a betrayal of Western art and bourgeois individuality. Adorno also vigorously resisted any politicized art at all (like protest songs), which he saw as equally vulgar. That he should be interested in shaping or controlling public opinion is absurd. He was an aesthete, pessimist and a quietest.
Starting with "On Pop Music" and "Jazz: The Perennial Fashion" is not a bad idea. Aesthetic Theory is his greatest work by far, but it presupposes a deep familiarity with Hegel. (Which is not a bad thing to have, frankly.)
2 of 3
Marcuse is also mostly hogwash. He lays on the Freudian nonsense very thick. Adorno is something different, though. Adorno, particularly in his writings on art, was as far from a "Cultural Marxist" as one can imagine -- he was rather the last intellectually serious defender of bourgeois/Western high art against all forms of cultural decay (popular music, film, etc.). That the academic left regularly dismisses him as an elitist should be proof that he's worth looking into. Not to mention, the influence of Spengler on Adorno runs deep -- he's probably his third most frequent citation, behind Hegel and Marx. (A strong case could be made for Adorno as being a strikingly conservative Hegelian backlash against vulgar Marxism.) (And... nearly everything of merit in Christopher Lasch -- who should be canon among reactionaries, if he is not already -- is taken from Adorno.)
3 of 3
I honestly can't tell if this is bait or not.
You dont get shot in the back of the head or put in an insane asylum for quitting and moving on to a new job, and you can be materially successful and still be politically undesirable. Just because some hedge-fund asshole with 5 billion to his name exists doesnt change the fact that by appropriately marketing a skill and performing it admirably you can do quite well in our society.
There have been no more exploitative societies than communist ones.
Don't bother reading pic related. It's 900 pages of surveys and summaries of surveys. Adorno also had very little to do with it, and the fact that conspiracy nuts ascribe most of its central thesis to him is laughable.
Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're a disgruntled grad student.
I don't think there is an elite illuminati conspiracy to destroy western civilization but I would like to know who in power has enough dirt on Angela Merkel to make her flood Germany with thousands of savages and why she looks extremely nervous every time she has to talk publicly about it.
>who in power has enough dirt on Angela Merkel
dumbass germans who decided to stop breeding for some reason. This created a major demand for cheap labor needed sustain a population increasingly composed of olds who dont work. by now, everyone's realised just letting every morocan who shows up at the door was a bad idea so im guessing the next big thing is gonna be a push to euthanise all the olds and neet hipster faggots
>who in power has enough dirt on Angela Merkel to make her flood Germany with thousands of savages
The international circumstances, Germany's leading roll in the European Union, and general humanistic ideals.
If this was made to replace a dwindling labor class, wouldn't it be much more simple for the immigrants to get a working license?
Why do people from the other end of the world talk about the stuff that is going on here when all they know about it is from taiwanese panty collector congresses?
>They never make the transition.
This is like saying liberalism is impossible because all it does is install enlightened Monarchs. It's been like 100 years, it took much longer for capitalism to develop than that, why should socialism be an overnight success when that's never been true for anything?
>However, this can in no way be compared to the spook that some intellectuals in the interbellum age laid out a master plan that paid off *decaces* later.
Yeah yeah yeah Gramsci never existed. Leftists have never knowingly discussed things like a long march through the institutions.
Your gaslighting tactics won't work any more.
How is this? I love Gottfried and I'm definitely in his milieu but I have enough of my evil crypto-Nazi tentacles in the left that I don't want to read a boring triumphalist "LOL MARXISM BTFO" shit, no matter how erudite it is.
His positive stuff on Schmitt is great but I'm worried he'll be a shallowly polemicist "party man" when attacking cultural Marxism.
What's the alternative?
Every business operates at 0% profit margin?
Wheres the incentive to start business and invest the initial capital?
Is retaining some amount of money for expansion / reinvestment allowed or is it exploitative if money in doesn't equal money out exactly?
I'm not even going to pretend that capitalism is the best of all possible systems, we actually may witness the end of capitalism in the next hundred years thanks to automation (which came about through competition not socialist theorizing). But there is never a practical alternative proposed to it. Every single attempt at large scale collective redistribution has resulted in massive human suffering in complete disproportion to their capitalist contemporaries.
Your simply ignoring baseline incentives that people operate on. Are some of the outcomes of capitalism exploitative and oppressive? Sure, but to pretend that it is the worst of current options requires you to ignore the much greater scale of exploitation and oppression created by everything else we've tried.
The Great Leap forward killed somewhere between 30 and 50 million people through incompetence alone. We don't know the actual total because keeping track would have made the state look bad.
Pol Pot executed massive numbers of political and intellectual opponents in the name of re-education.
Cuba continues to be so shitty that thousands of people risk their lives on driftwood to escape every year. It's literally a life imprisonment for the natives to posses a lobster because the state want's those to be served in hotels to tourists. That way all the hippie wannabe journalists continue to pump out propaganda articles about how awesome Cuba is while never setting foot outside the tourist zones into the extreme poverty.
It's pretty fucking ignorant to maintain that communisms bad actors began and ended in Russia 70 years ago.
Because liberalism actually produced some number of constitutional republics? Every communist attempt has resulted in despotism. Socialism (poorly defined though it is) is not a mutually exclusive option.
Honestly, I was just looking for literature on the theory of Cultural Marxism, not its supposed effect on Western culture. Nevertheless I'm glad to see it has sparked a debate. It's good to see actual discussion on here rather than the meme drivel that's been around here lately.
'Despotism' is a political buzzword, don't you think? Stalin was a despot. Kim Il-Sung was a despot. But was Brezhnev? Gorbachev? Is Xi Jinping? Don't these societies have checks and balances in the form of the interests of the bureaucracy, the military, the interests of the working people themselves (which are, in fact, taken into account, or else why would any of these countries even manage to justify themselves?). Not that I'm defending any of these as ideal societies. But they are more complicated than the 1984 strawman would suggest.
You're so stuck in the mindset that you don't consider the obvious alternative.
>>What's the alternative?
worker owned corporations or if that proves to be somehow inefficient (not properly tried) then you could try the developmental states like south korea and tiawan which double their GDP in about 10 years, compared to other developed nations stuggling to get 2% yearly
>Honestly, I was just looking for literature on the theory of Cultural Marxism, not its supposed effect on Western culture.
all you will find is alex-jones tier videos or articles written by blatant racists
>What's the alternative?
He did not really make any point here. He just said "They attack our values, but our values are good.", while generally throwing out ad hominems ("The lefts are all about fight. I think Hitler said Kampf, it is something like that.").
Here is the thing that always bugs me about these, for lack of a better word, opponents of cultural marxism: they are mad at the devaluation of traditional values in society, but don't really adress why this devaluation occured in the first place, so instead they insist there is some boogyman out to get them who intentionally wants to destroy their good old days. "Just go back to traditionalism." simply does not work, because traditionalism is dead.
The problem is however that many people who are labeled "cultural marxists" often act like the devaluation of values is a good thing. It's God's death all over again: the one half says "God is't dead, because that would be bad.", the other half says "God is dead and that is good.", while no one comes to terms with what is the sad truth: "God is dead and that is bad." And instead, both sides think the other one decided upon their standpoint to intentionally and actively oppose them, not out of their own personal conclusions that made them arrive there.
See also the absurd debate over immigration - "uncontrolled immigration is bad and we must stop it you PC LIBERAL SCUM" versus "uncontrolled immigration is the future you RACISTS". Very few people say "regardless of your opinion uncontrolled immigration is the end result of the economic system of the day and is not something that can be either stopped or that should be championed".
>you could try the developmental states like south korea and tiawan which double their GDP in about 10 years, compared to other developed nations stuggling to get 2% yearly
That growth is temporary and economically developed countries can't replicate it because they don't have opportunities to improve producitivity from the low baseline enjoyed by Asian shit holes.
>Had immigration been subjected to a democrativ cote, it would have been halted in all Western nations decades ago.
Nice projection, /pol/, but not everyone shares your opinions. Or how do you explain the majority of people in european nations like France or Germany still voting for the parties that are pro-immigration?
The original multiculturalism was pushed by ideologues for generations
Boogey boogey it's Kevin MacDonald
and everything he says here is trivially true
>everyone who does not share my opinion is brainwashed
>literally everything proves me right
What if the people who are anti-immigration are brainwashed?
>5 minutes in and he just keeps talking about jewish immigration into the USA
>then he just keeps ranting about how the white man will lose control
>oh no, the asians will be on top because they are better in school than whites!
>the hispanics will destroy western culture!
I don't really see what this has to do with the current european situation. We do not import those guys because we want to destroy our culture, we let them in because where they are from they would likely die and no one else takes them. So we try our best to integrate them into our society.