Arguments for or against Cultural Marxism

[dfnj]

I think the term "Cultural Marxism" is derogatory for the people who use it. I found this video that explains what it means to the people who use the term:

It's an interesting video but I think it misses the point why people are fighting for equality. People actually are being discriminated against because they being are being labeled. Labels carry bigotry, prejudice, and hatred. Take police brutality against blacks:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

I do appreciate the argument made in the Cultural Marxist video that some people may be using the fight for equality as a way to gain some kind of unfair advantage. But to say there is no inequality or oppression and that "Cultural Marxism" has no valid basis is just wrong. There is all kinds of inequality against all kinds of people based on derogatory labels. But rather than address fight inequality "Cultural Marxism" video just confirms to people who think they are oppressed by making it sound like there is nothing real to the oppression.

Plus there's something very wrong in using "Marxism" as a derogatory label. Marxist theory has very important criticism of laissez faire capitalism that I believe are valid criticisms. If you are going to use the term "Marxism" then you better understand what it means. Here's a really good introduction video explaining what is bad with laissez faire capitalism.

Again, the video on Cultural Marxism flips everything around. It's NOT about promoting Marxism. It's about addressing the problems with laissez faire capitalism. Just like the people who are fighting for equality are fighting oppression and NOT trying to get some unfair advantage.

 

[Kemosloby]

Seems like the bait and switch. First he tells you modern society could produce a house and car for everyone on the planet, Then he tells you he wants to take away all private property. Capitalism is just fine. People can have a job where they work efficiently for others and a hobby where they can enjoy self expression.

 

[dfnj]

Seems like the bait and switch. First he tells you modern society could produce a house and car for everyone on the planet, Then he tells you he wants to take away all private property. Capitalism is just fine. People can have a job where they work efficiently for others and a hobby where they can enjoy self expression.

I thought the video did a very good job balancing the two systems. You seem very jaded to one side of the argument.

I do not share your sentiments laissez faire capitalism is a panacea. Wealth inequality is at insane levels in this country. For the people with all the wealth and privilege everything is just fine. For the people living with depresses wages not so much.

 

[Laika]

If someone uses the term "Cultural Marxism", it is usually going to be someone who opposes efforts to equalise relations in society because it is considered unnatural. They have a point, but only to the extent that the Cultural Revolutions of the New Left in the 1960's and 70's have had lasting effects on Western societies and these do have a source from the Frankfurt School in the 1920's and 30's.

Conservatives would argue that "Cultural Marxism" undermines traditional relationships based on hierarchy, difference and inequalities and is a symptom of social decay and communist subversion. they would say that a hierarchy of values is necessary to distinguish between what is healthy and diseased, truth and untruth, beauty and ugliness. As a result, "Cultural Marxism" promotes that is sick and ugly in society and undermines the value systems that made Western civilisation so productive and creative as it transforms virtues in to vices.

They have a point, and there certainly are theories out there that emphasis subjective preference to the point where they destroy objective utility of ideas and values such as Post-Modernism. What they typically miss is how often "Cultural Marxism" is actually a product of Capitalism itself and the way in which the emphasis on subjective individual preferences is a way to treat people as consumers.

Being more "inclusive" expands the number of people who can be involved in a market and makes produces more attractive to a variety of consumers. Being "politically correct" means you can sell to men and women, to blacks, whites and asians, to gay, straight and bisexual people. They make a mistake in thinking that Cultural Marxism is "left-wing" when in fact it seeks to reform rather than overthrow Capitalism as Communists would. Cultural Marxism remains a "culture war" in which we wage a struggle to improve the language as a substitute to improving social and economic conditions. People try to get rid of the symptoms of exploitation and oppression whilst the institutions responsible form them (Capitalism) remain in place. This is not necessarily a right-wing or left-wing criticism, but Cultural Marxism has to be seen in its context as the cultural transformation of capitalist society and that identity politics is a substitute for class politics. So even as they may label it as a "Left-wing" phenomena, they are really fighting the product of Capitalism producing a globalised society in which markets must expand to include not only privallaged "elites" but also the more diverse middle classes by multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness.

There video below does a really good way to explaining the relationship through South Park;

 

[dfnj]

Seems like the bait and switch.

I didn't want to talk about Marx anyway. I was just pointing out the term "Marxism" is painted by propaganda in a bad light when the actual criticism Marx makes seem quite valid to me. I was really interest in the validity of Cultural Marxism not Marxism versus capitalism.

 

[dfnj]

Conservatives would argue that "Cultural Marxism" undermines traditional relationships based on hierarchy, difference and inequalities and is a symptom of social decay and communist subversion. they would say that a hierarchy of values is necessary to distinguish between what is healthy and diseased, truth and untruth, beauty and ugliness. As a result, "Cultural Marxism" promotes that is sick and ugly in society and undermines the value systems that made Western civilization so productive and creative as it transforms virtues in to vices.

I'm not sure there is a clear connection between "sick and ugly in society" and just having some social equality in society. The moment anyone tries to address inequalities in society they are labeled a communist. Meanwhile this is happening for real:

An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox's Dara Lind found that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population. Although the data is incomplete because it's based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.

I think Cultural Marxism is just labeling so inequalities never get addressed by the authoritarians who like things just the way they are.

 

[Kemosloby]

I thought the video did a very good job balancing the two systems. You seem very jaded to one side of the argument.

I do not share your sentiments laissez faire capitalism is a panacea. Wealth inequality is at insane levels in this country. For the people with all the wealth and privilege everything is just fine. For the people living with depresses wages not so much.

Trouble is it would never work, except to make people more like slaves to take away their property. The rich people are the ones making the rules. If they wanted to give stuff away they could just give stuff away.

 

[dfnj]

right-wing or left-wing criticism

Speaking of "Dialectical Materialism", you might find this video interesting:

It's quite disturbing to think idealism is back in the lead again based on scientific evidence. I did not expect reality to be this way!

 

[dfnj]

Trouble is it would never work, except to make people more like slaves to take away their property. The rich people are the ones making the rules. If they wanted to give stuff away they could just give stuff away.

I don't think roll over and play slave is the answer to the inequalities of society. I think it is important to consider the words of FDR:

An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

'Necessitous men are not free men.' Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't think roll over and play slave is the answer to the inequalities of society. I think it is important to consider the words of FDR:



Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention

'Necessitous men are not free men.' Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.

Nah..necessitous men go get a job.

 

[Laika]

I'm not sure there is a clear connection between "sick and ugly in society" and just having some social equality in society. The moment anyone tries to address inequalities in society they are labeled a communist. Meanwhile this is happening for real:

As a Communist I know what you mean.

The problem for Conservatives is that what they value is de-valued so they question why it is being devalued. They say that promises of inequality are an illusion and that you can't have popular culture without losing the quality of the elites. They think equality means levelling down and destroying civilisation by reducing everything to the lowest common denominator basically.

I think Cultural Marxism is just labeling so inequalities never get addressed by the authoritarians who like things just the way they are.

On that I basically agree with you. the surest way to ensure no-one takes you seriously is to call it "Marxist". Its an understandable taboo in Western societies, but America especially.

Speaking of "Dialectical Materialism", you might find this video interesting:

It's quite disturbing to think idealism is back in the lead again based on scientific evidence. I did not expect reality to be this way!

I currently have an English translation of an East German Textbook that deals with the problems concerning Dialectical Materialism and Physics. For Marxists it dates back to Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" and a series of philosophical disputes over the nature of matter. So Quantum Mechanics is only an extension of "physical idealism" as Lenin put it. It is however still hard to convincingly master Dialectical Materialism and Qauntum Mechanics in such a way that you can debate your way through the subject matter. So its on my to do list.

 

[Sanzbir]

I think the term "Cultural Marxism" is derogatory for the people who use it. I found this video that explains what it means to the people who use the term:

The big flaw is its inherently divisive.

It embraces difference and division and formilates everything as a struggle between two sides: It's a modern application of base tribalistic instinct.

Which... might explain why Marxists are so prone to infighting.

Ultimately I don't think it is conductive to solving inequalities. Thinking in terms of "us versus them", no matter what, will only lead to hate and violence.

It's an interesting video but I think it misses the point why people are fighting for equality. People actually are being discriminated against because they being are being labeled. Labels carry bigotry, prejudice, and hatred. Take police brutality against blacks:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

To illustrate why I think a Cultural Marxist approach is bad, I will adapt the problem you identify above.

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force... and there are even bigger sexual disparities in how the us police use force. That is to say men are treated more harshly by police, are charged more often, and are given longer prison sentences when found guilty. All these are also disparities African Americans face, but the disparity is actually much greater if you compare police bias in terms of gender.

The Marxian lens on this issue is that men are being oppressed by women and should rise up and struggle against them. It would advocate a class warfare of the oppressed class of men against the oppressor class of women. It would set the genders against one another as enemies and would not, I think, be conductive in actually achieving policing equality on the gender front.

Cultural Marxism cannot address situations in which both sides suffer under the same system, because of the class warfare model, which is based on an assumption that one side has all the power and advantages while another side has only the disadvantages. Thus it is impotent when confronted with, say, sexual inequality where both sides suffer inequalities imposed by the whole of society. A Marxian Feminist could not easily address issues like male genital mutilation or the policing gap, and a Marxian MRA can not address women's issues like the earnings gap. The class warfare mentality cannot address the issues of all genders because it requires a struggle against one of those groups as an oppressor class.

I do appreciate the argument made in the Cultural Marxist video that some people may be using the fight for equality as a way to gain some kind of unfair advantage. But to say there is no inequality or oppression and that "Cultural Marxism" has no valid basis is just wrong. There is all kinds of inequality against all kinds of people based on derogatory labels. But rather than address fight inequality "Cultural Marxism" video just confirms to people who think they are oppressed by making it sound like there is nothing real to the oppression.

The problem is not in identifying inequalities, it's in proposed Marxian solutions. Cultural Marxism is the lens by which everything is viewed in terms of class warfare. It only really has a chance of working in cases where there is a clear oppressor class and a clear oppressed class, and even so I don't think the mentality of warfare and struggle against an enemy is conducive towards long-term solutions.

Plus there's something very wrong in using "Marxism" as a derogatory label. Marxist theory has very important criticism of laissez faire capitalism that I believe are valid criticisms. If you are going to use the term "Marxism" then you better understand what it means. Here's a really good introduction video explaining what is bad with laissez faire capitalism.

Marx was a wealthy hack and his idea of "class" was fundamentally flawed and in no way makes sense in the modern era. Under Marx's view of class and the class struggle, rich and powerful actors are the oppressed proletariat, and the Thai immigrant down the street who runs an excellent buffet is the oppressor bourgeois.

His criticisms aren't good, because his entire understanding of class is faulty to begin with. The reality we live in is one where there are rich and powerful proletariat at the very top of society and humble bourgeois at the very bottom. His assumptions of class are quite unfounded.

Which is where the Cultural Marxists come in, essentially an effort to apply Marx's class warfare ideas to different "us-versus-them" groups, with very few Marxists today taking any interest in the struggle between the classes Marx himself believed in.