Cultural Marxism Explained In 7 Minutes
Submitted by Joseph Salerno via The Mises Institute,
This is an excellent short video explaining the source and nature of Cultural Marxist movements like political correctness, modern feminism, pansexualism, multiculturalism, "whiteness studies," etc.
For an in-depth critique of the thinkers whose writings shaped Cultural Marxism, see Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by the eminent British philosopher Roger Scruton. Scruton brilliantly exposes the pretensions, obscurities, and inanities of Sartre, Foucault, Galbraith, Marcuse, Lukacs, Habermas, Adorno, Rawls, Dworkin and others of their ilk.
The book is not just a philosophical tract but a work in critical political economy and contains one of the most penetrating discussions of the Marxist labor theory of value that I have ever read.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Nothing to fear. Google maps has the locations of all the soup kitchens.
The pirates who created debt-based fiat money and central banking (calling it 'capitalism') have a plan for the West when they are done looting it with these tools.
One big smoking hole.
Boo! Down with Marxists and Fascists!
Yeah for Libertarians!
This stuff is scary. I just don't know what the cultural marxists are planning at their Davos meeting this week. I need to retreat to my safe place and stack and load.
It is scary.
A few days ago someone posted a short diatribe about the term 'Cultural Marxism' being false/incorrect in its invocation of Marxism.
I hope that person takes a look at this video.
Another article written by morons who are intentionally trying to mislead the people.
This article is hot off the press of the lying machine.
True Fascists and National Socialists are not in power. If we were, things would be set right.
Europe wouldn't look like the near-East. Isn'treal wouldn't control the West. Whole sections of major cities wouldn't be no-go zones for Whites. Homosexuality would be put firmly back IN THE CLOSET. Scientific reality would take the lead over cultural-Marxism and pandering to fools wouldn't be necessary.
Just to name a few...
Itss both the same Dialectic, the synthesis of these both is statism. Left right paradigm is a fraud. Your name and profil pic are contradictions.
I don't need to tell you that the Frankfurt School was populated by Jews who were looking for a way to "intellectualize" their hatred of western civilization. Everywhere you find the stink of corruption, underneath it you'll find an unusually large number of Jews. They are the great corrupters of society. No wonder the Germans wanted them out of their country.
dirty slob
Jews have been kicked out of Europe 109 times throughout history, the 110th time is long overdue, they are just very evil people.
They need to be kicked out of America as well.
They'll use their great, entitled, black army to thwart that.
I hope Mises acolytes are aware that capitalism is as much of a problem as cultural Marxism at intentionally eradicating native cultures and people and replacing them with bloodless cosmopolitanisms.
So you're saying that by me, getting up every morning, holding down a job, paying my own way for EVERYTHING, being taxed out the ass by the "progressive tax system" (which penalizes earning more and being successful by the way) and still managing to save a little (the basis of capitalism) is somehow eradicating cultures & people?
How so?
If you have to ask that question you've never been to South America. Never seen hungry people farming land that is being used not to grow food for themselves but to export luxury crops north. And yes.... if you are working you are feeding that monster.
Hungry people in South America...where, what country? Does it have anything to do with the price of corn (maize) because of fucking ETHANOL in fuel?
Capitalism does not exist where there is govt regulation. It doesn't exist where there is govt assistance or subsidy. Capitalism is not about the individual vs "them", it's about respecting people. Cultural socialism is a result of State coercion. The State does not allow traditional culture to function as necessary, in favor of trusting in "good intentions" and enforced mediocrity.
Capitalism has gotten redefined to mean fascism. Of course 'capitalism' was coined by Marx in the first place, to be derogatory. We should embrace the better term Anarchism or Voluntaryism. Teach people about the difference.
Capitilism without socialism is fascism. Socialism without capitalism is communism. There are certain things that only the private sector can accomplish, and if you remove the private sector you get famine. And there are others that they can never accomplish, because the rewards are either too spread out over time, or too intangible.
Nicely put! (if oddly spelt...)
Well spelt! But oddly put.
Suggest that you bone up on the various "isms", and throw in government control as an integral component. Otherwise, carry on forward!
Capitalism without socialism is capitalism.
Honestly rested On the Table, honestly checked In my subatomic world.
More then average chance, that your opinion is True.
PS: Not such thing as communism (Theory of equal stomachs)
And are those hungry farmers working on government or corporate farms because their non capitalist economy does not allow for property rights that allow them to own and work their own land more productively than your criticisms?
Genuine property rights relating to everything is the cornerstone to effective capitalism. Even to explain a woman's body is her property and hence rape is illegal because it violates her property rights.
I think you need a rethink of history, politics, and philosophy.
The theories of capitalism can be seen in much the same way as that of the social contract. Where Hobbes saw that the outskirts of cities represented a 'nasty, brutish, and short' life he carried this reality over into a fiction of primitive life. Conversely, the Grandfather of Capitalism took a reduced picture of the satanic mills and made them out to be a romantic economic theory of what total belief in industry could mean for democracy. Out of the nasty, brutish, and short life under monarchy would come the total equality of life beneath industry. What is ironic here is that the iron belief in individual wealth and prosperity of small groups stems from a book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". In an age of reductionism and realism analogy seems to escape people. The idea of capitalism was always about nationhood and expansion of empire. Indeed, even the covert expansion of monarchy; or what we would now call the deep state. Even more ironic here is the connection to Marx. From Adam Smith onwards the theories of capital are always tied to nationalism and nation building. It is only with Marx that all other aspects of society are abstracted out to achieve the efficacious grace of economy (in many ways a repeat of the Greek fetish of the oikos which would give rise to Christianity, subsequently sowing the seeds of compound interest in ideological form). My point here should be obvious, if being atrocious for the average zerohedge reader and believer in the perseverance of capital: anarcho-capitalists are much closer in their beliefs to Marx than they are to the original capitalists. Smith's invisible hand was an analogy, if a very romantic and reduced one. And it is only with Marx that this analogy loses its storied meaning and becomes realism. Capitalists somehow came to believe that the social contract reduced to economic language was not somehow just a semantic game within the halls of bureaucracy. The only real difference is that Marx believed in the ideology while opposing it insofar as the ideology could be used for his own gains, while anarcho-capitalists believe wholeheartedly in the fiction created by their masters. This can be confirmed by anyone who takes an objective look at Austrian economics - it is little more than reduced Marxism, applying ideas developed by Marx and turning them around to blame government for what are economic problems in themselves. Everywhere that Marx says 'the bourgeoisie', Mises simply says 'the state'. Everywhere Marx says 'capital', Mises says 'capital controls'. Everywhere Marx says 'dictatorship of the proletariat, Mises says 'dictatorship of the true capitalists.' What this fundamentally ignores -in reduced form - is that there waws never such a thing as capitalism; and in expanded form - that economy cannot exist of itself, free of the other cornerstones of civilisation/the state. Anarcho-capitalists kid themselves into thinking they are born free children in a society without history. But they are bastard children born and raised authoritatively by the hand of government. Everything they know was created and produced by accumulative progression of thousands of years of government. And yet, somehow, they think they are free individuals, and that the Wealth of Nations (the original Fed money printing theory) shall set them free. Further, and to connect this to the theme of the article, anarcho-capitalists (some zerohedgers included) have developed their own Cultural Miserism. For one, they probably do not realise how close their ideas are to cultural marxism itself. Otherwise, they do not see how their critiques of Western capital controls are themselves state forms of ideology. At worst, the ideology simply reacts to whatever the state does and creates an impossible logic of state inversion. This, of course, does not limit the state, but instead redirects the energy of the state into its counter form - a state just as powerful but with opposed politics (whether local or national, it is no matter). And at best, the ideology abstracts two-sided politics - instead of Republicans or Democrats you must show your loyalty to laissez-faie economics (the reduced state) against the state. The blue team is whatever is official, and the red team is whatever is unofficial. And no one can think what will happen when the unofficial becomes official. Party politics without the Parties. If anything the better form is worse due to its increased value of manipulation, abstraction, and conflating individuality with reactionism. The obvious example is that anything suggested by the government is wrong - the opposite is true. Instead of global warming there is global cooling. Instead of American taking over the world, the world has taken over America. Instead of capital corrupting the state, it is the state corrupting capital. Instead of the socialism of the Free Shit Army there should be the Free Shit Army of socialism. Etc. etc.. Anyone who has read Marx (or Hegel) will immediately recognise the irony here (keep in mind this is not a position on any of these things I am taking, I am simply discussing inversions and the connection to Marxism). As a counter to this I will suggest a phrase often used by a cultural marxist: 'Both positions are worse'. (The phrase is often used by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, not really a cultural marxist, but clearly influenced by them. He essentially takes a stalinist phrase and uses it for democratic purposes. Not without its pitfalls, and certainly not something I agree with, but it is an interesting counter to two-sided politics and binary thinking. Global warming or global cooling? They are both worse. Muslims or Christians? They are both worse. America or the world? They are both worse. Cultural marxists are the worst. And so are anarcho-capitalists (or Cultural Miserists). What anarcho-capitalists do not realise is that a belief in the pure and unconditional election of capital leads to the total depravity of reactionary political groups. A society cannot be solely economic. It is an impossibility, an absurdity. Socialism and fascism were reactions to capitalism, not because they were right and capitalism was wrong - only because capitalism was wrong and these ideologies sought to add something, or introduce a correction. It just so happened that these ideologies were wrong too. They were not worse, just a progressive or regressive reaction to what had already gone horribly wrong, to what was already a state society conditioning people to a lie. In short, it is impossible to get a right answer when the wrong question is asked. Capitalism is simply one answer to a wrong question. A society which is solely based on economic organisation will always be wrong, as societies are not solely economic in nature - humans have needs beyond that of economic realism. And no ideological trickery will make capitalism contradict its own reality. It is a reduced idea, a partial and unfinished part of monarchist systems meant to hide power while exposing it to the future. This is a contradiction few comprehend, but is at the core of the current insanity. Capitalism is simply the continuation of politics and theology by other means. Beyond this, your recuperation of the idea of anarchy for political purposes suggests an ideological link to that of government.Very well said all around...
Thank you. Sorry that there is no spacing. When I first typed it out there was spacing, but something obviously went wrong in the 1s and 0s.
What he said.
Zizek is worth grappling with.
Partly but i was thinking more chocolate and coffee. Or try India... people are starving and a lot of available cropland is being used for silly shit like tulips to export to europe.
If you live in the west and you don't think your lifestyle is built on the backs of others you're living in a dream world.
Chocolate and coffee.
My wife worked with a chick who married a Mexican (a regular dude) who told her how his village got their coffee, they went into the mountains and picked it themselves and NONE of them were hungry or starving.
And this whole Marxist "if you live in the west" thingy is getting rather tiresome and long in the tooth as well, I guess the oligarchs of Russia or the mullahs of Iran should take better notes and close their bank accounts in foreign lands? ;-)
a lot of those third world countries and even some first world countries are way over populated - has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with being out of balance with any kind of natural order - so...dont feed the africans. the more you feed them the more they breed - and the muslims et al are madly breeding too, and then they expect you will let them move into your house - now you dont have to send the aid halfway around the world - in terms of efficient distribution it doesnt get better than that, removing the distance component from the food aid program guarantees that that food will get to their hungry mouths faster and their will be less corruption - but now your quality of life is shit. dont feed the africans.
Or try India... people are starving and a lot of available cropland is being used for silly shit like tulips to export to europe.
Apparently, they demand money more than they demand raw food, as perhaps the Dutch prefer tulips to money; resulting in a fair exchange.
Tulips bring in money, to buy the things people want freely and without coersion.... the fact that there are people starving has more to do with irresponsibly having kids you know you cannot feed. (Unless of course you are talking about those poor cotton farmers that Monsanto clubbed like seals.)
Yes, my 'lifestyle' of shoes that wear out in 2 months and toasters that never did work right. My lifestyle is built on my own back, and the products of my own back exchanged freely and voluntarily for the products of someone else's back.If their lives need improvement, they can quit their job and find or make something better -if that is Forbidden; then it isn't capitalism anyway.
If it is impossible to 'find' another job, then maybe they need to look at their labor market and realize what supply and demand means.
Minimum wage should be a commodity on Wall Street. Then everyone can see what happens when there is a glut of supply and someone furiously pumping more in.
Maybe it has something to do with fact that their populations have increased by 600% in the last 50 years! That's why their GDP per head sucks, and that's why no amount of food aid will fix the problem until they get their heads out of their asses or stop thinking with their dicks...
...which they choose to farm because it beats mere subsistence farming.
Why do you think the Chinese fled the fields to work in sweat shops assembling iPhones? Because that even still beats subsistence farming
Look at what happened to the price of corn and pork in Mexico after NAFTA- subsistence farming isn't even an option when you have that kind of disparity in production edficiency(if that's what you call gmos and petrochemical fertilizers coming from US). Also, US still heavily subsidized food crops that it exports, further fucking these people over.
Subsistence farming isn't an option in the USA either, that's why the rural population has been moving to cities for generations, so that they can find work and feed themselves.
How in the fuck are agricultural subsidies capitalism you fucking moron! The entity of socialist utopia robs and defrauds the people to give those fucking subsidies to its cronies you brain dead nimrod.
Is capitalism even a real thing then? Or is it more like absolute zero, just an idea? Because your perfect capitalism would have no gov at all. This reminds me of how when Muslims blow something up and liberals all say, " well that's not TRUE Islam," even though that is the expressed motivation of the bomber. So, when our leaders (who call themselves capitalists)fuck everything up in the name of capitalism, that's not TRUE capitalism, right??
Correctomundo numb nutts. Capitalism is the absense of coersion. Just because some blow hard says something doesn't make it so. Your straw man of muslims denies the fact that their holy book kinda says "Kill the infidel!" sooooo...I can't find that in Mises, or Smith, or Aristotle really.
Is there ever going to be no coersion. Nope. Because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAiyUduyrY
However screaching that the Imperial Gov't of 1865 is in ANYWAY on the side of a small and unobtrusive GOVERNMENT is quite a stretch.
Thus the pendulum swings.
Right, "Government," particularly "Imperial Government," is some kind of alien life form utterly foreign to and the evil mortal opposite of Capitalism.
The first thing capitalists do, once they've got a good wad, is impose as much government as they possibly can. Everybody knows why. They use government as a weapon against competition, labor, expenses, and barriers to doing whatever the hell they want however the hell they want to.
Want to find people who hate Free Markets and will do anything, and I mean literally anything, to prevent Free Markets from ever existing? Look for Capitalists. "Capitalism is the absence of coercion?" Hoo-boy, did they see you coming.
Precocious undergrads or autodidacts, the kinds of people who find Von Mises useful, rarely have any contact with actual Capitalists, so it's understandable they believe what Capitalists tell them.
The problem, as is usually the case is the definition of terms.
Most people say "capitalism" and really mean "free market economy". Capitalism cannot be a truly free market, because as was stated before, a country is more than just an economy as government will absolutely be involved in one way, shape, or form. As we all know, where private money and government meet is a nasty bedfellows that follows, and that's when you get a legit bitch and draw towards communism.
If you're a capitalist, hey great, but let's understand the terms and concepts.
Trust business to be a panacea for us all? Not on your life!
It all aims to monopoly. Enjoy the private financial tyranny then.
In a free market, it can only be a monopoly if it delivers the goods so cheaply and reliably that no competition can arrise or survive. And if it does, then fine and dandy. How is it your problem? When it fails, competition springs up -unless the coersive heel of government is on the scales.Even with the coersive hand of gov't tipping the scales, sometimes capitalism still manages to win through -the US Post Office once had a virtual monopoly- or did you never get a package from UPS or FedEX?
Trust business over gov't any day -business can't put a gun to my head and force me to either buy an IPhone or pay tribute.
Most of them were forced to it, actually. They LOST the land and now farm it for slave wages because there are no options left.
Yeah ee get it. Guilty if you are a gringo. Victim if you are a brownie.
Coffee is a luxury crop? Bananas? Sugar cane? Cocaine maybe.
Are those farmers "hungry" because they all work for free? Or does growing luxury crops necessarily mean you get paid less? According to your view, BMWs are produced by German workers so they must be hungry.
Yes. Read "We", and if you still believe in 'individualism' and capitalism afterwards then you're probably a bigger government idiot than Obama.
How does going to work daily to produce Jewcoins and have them subsequently siphoned off to the government make you a free individual? Anarcho-capitalists don't see how contradictory they are. Capitalism is successful only insofar as it successfully hides its collectivism. It makes people think they are free individuals in the same way that Christianity makes people believe that those who hold onto their slave morality long enough shall inherit the earth.
The only real difference is that the slave moralists believe that they will be saved by G-d while the untercapitalists believe their production value is G-d (while not recognising that it all goes to the government in the end anyway). The reductionist religion of capital will make a desert of the next American revolution, as it did the last.
'I'm a free individual because I go to work everyday and play cargo cult for the government, as if my Two Minutes Hate for the Fed doesn't keep it going. The Slave Morality Semantics Workcamp Macht Free.' None of the dystopian fiction industry ever got to this absurd contradiction at the core of capitalism/democracy, they/you fear too much of absolute control from the outside/government while ignoring that people themselves beg for these controls - or would even create worse controls given half the chance.
How do you plan to fight the hegemony?
First, by ensuring I understand what the real hegemony is while not feeding back into it or a new one. Second, by existing on a small scale while not progressing the collectivism inherent in isolationism. Third, by working towards a system sure of purpose and meaning while preventing the abstraction of such a system into a homogenous state.
I know that is vague but it is too open-ended a question to really answer within a medium of short answers
Hmmm...the only people I ever see type G-d instead of God are Jews...
Anywho, moron, capitalism is the absense of every straw man you attempt to bludgeon in your mindless little screed. Go back to the drawing board, imbecile.