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.
(42 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yeah ee get it. Guilty if you are a gringo. Victim if you are a brownie.
Way to stay on narrative, Komrade Swamp!
Forward Untermensch!
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
Substitute Egalitarian for Homogenous and I think it sums you up.
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.
You resort to namecalling while missing a clear ironic point, and offering nothing yourself. Time to go back to the fundamentals (you missed out on children's books, I take it).
I will bet money that you draw a paycheck extracted or subsidized by taxpayers.
How can I put this in even blunter terms than I already have? Lets see, the company I work at needs my expertise, they offer to pay and give (albeit lessening) benefits me for it, I accept the proposition.
It's voluntary.
I have the opportunity (I shit you not) to leave them Monday morning and double my pay BECAUSE my expertise is in demand.
I CHOOSE to stay for a myriad of reasons, two of which is my current lifestyle and family, completely OUTSIDE OF the interest of money.
And this...makes me "a slave"?
You're completely fucked up morally.
You are born into a world using Jewcoins which require you to work 40-80 hours a week and trade them back for your survival (after thousands of years of government intervention in the markets which led to this 'voluntarism bubble), and you call this voluntary...
You make it clear that anarcho-capitalists are digital Marxists within a lagged-out iPhone update.
I have created & owned businesses that employ other people.
I work for myself and only myself and everyone who ever worked in one of my businesses knew that concept as well, they worked for themselves and their interests too.
You make it clear that you can't separate the self-interest of ALL from Greek & Roman coins, apparently.
A Primer on Battling the Plague of Cultural Marxism:
http://winteractionables.com/?p=29444
This. thank you. I am an anarchist, and I believe anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Large concentrations of wealth are even more dangerous than government.
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the profit motive prioritizes the acquisition of capital to the exclusion of everything else institutionally and where it exercises influence over our society it changes it to further only capitalization of resources, human and otherwise, over any other system of values.
how do you figure
baited breath.... Nice work nmewn ;-)
I forgot to mention market breadth?
Their heads are as deeply buried in the sand as their counterparts' on the left are. They would rather just forget about the original genocide on this continent, and pick back up with history/economics sometime after then, but before Carter. Ya know, back in the good ole days when America was "great" and everything was hunky-dory
Not all favor historicism to explain economic phenomena
Yea I know...I hear enough of that shit from family though so I snapped back...broad bushes never help us create a clearer picture
So when its RED on RED genocide, we don't discuss it. When it BLACK on BLACK we don't discuss it. YELLOW on YELLOW, perish the thought!
Ok, got it now, cultural marxism.
Thats rayciss
Evidently these days...lol...and spoken absolutely unapologetically ;-)
FUCK DIVERSITY!
Absolutely discuss it, when it's relevant. I have no problem discussing atrocities committed by other people, but our conversation was specifically centered around capitalism and its relation to the founding of THIS country.
Relevant? You're the one who brought it up!...lol.
With words something like "the original genocide on this continent" or something or other.
You runnin down the Iroquois or sumpin? I'm gonna report you to the Thought Police ;-)
Typing on a phone here, so a little imprecise...perhaps "original" was inaccurate, as surely natives were wiping each other out before Europeans arrived. I was referring more specifically to the genocide on which this nation is founded. And no, I don't think it's today's white peoples fault (I am white), nor do I feel any personal guilt. I was merely pointing out that, like many dangerous ideologues on the left, some on the right seem to have an amazing ability to ignore or downplay the negative consequences of their pet philosophy in their haste to tear down the other side.
Yeah, I know how typing on a phone can be...but (lol)...many on the left are stunned to find that the Arab's raided the EAST AFRICAN coast for slaves or if they know are being disingenuous.
So, original genocide, like what...us killing the British & Loyalists wherever we found them?
Thats war.
Absolutely many liberals are ignorant of lots of history that doesn't fit their narrative- it took me forever to convince my brother in law the other day that Arab and Brazilian enslavement of Africans began sooner, lasted longer, and was way more brutal than what N America practiced. We have common ground here, I feel it. I'll try to clarify if I was unclear- I don't at all think we should dig back into history to try and bring justice to crimes committed by all of humanity and before anyone alive today was born. My only reason for bringing up the native Americans was to caution that simply choosing "capitalism" over "socialism" (whatever those terms mean nowadays) is leaving a lot of important questions for the future both unasked and unanswered.
Ah, ok...late, also carrying on a conversation with Mrs.N.
Well let me offer what I think "capitalism" is...at least to me.
Capitalism is more individualistic, that is to say, a capitalist (a true capitalist, not some variation of a crony-statist-socialist "capitalist") takes his own risks, with his own saved labor in the form of money or time or whatever he values.
When he "wins" it is a personal win, not something shared. When he "loses" its his loss as well, not shared.
Erm...hmmmm...some white settlers killed injuns. Some intermarried with them. Twixt and between both sides loved and engaged in skuldugery. What's your fucking point?!?
The only injun mass slaughters that I am aware of didn't occur because of capitalism, but were carried out by fucking government. You know, the trail of tears, all those "brave" yankee soldiers heading west after pillaging the south, Spanish and Portuguese soldiers (Conqustadors), British military, French military....though I gotta say the French did tend to live and let live as far as injuns were concerned.
At least without government, differing peoples tend to figure out how to get along rather than kill each other. It's simply more cost effective. Not always, but they do tend to.
Bachelor's degree in anthrolpology talking here. Government was just the tool. big business was puching like mad for the extermination of the remaining natives following the civil war.
Erm...if the politicians didn't have the power to sell...it could not have been purchased. Then said "Big Buiz" (AKA Lincoln's rail road buddies...) would have had to pay for the soldiers out of their own pocket, which of course they did a bit with the Pickertons...but even that was somewhat subsidized as Unky Sugar made lots of legal exemptions for them Pinkerton Boys.
I think he means the Vikings intentionally bringing Ebola to new found land in the seventh century or whatever. Not sure though, dates may vary.
So we should be punished for the crimes of people who existed centuries ago? Will brown and yellow people be punished for the crimes of past generations as well?
No, I never meant, said or implied this. You pulled that strawman out of your own paranoid brain
Hmmm... you doth protest too much.
"Their heads are as deeply buried in the sand as their counterparts' on the left are. They would rather just forget about the original genocide on this continent, and pick back up with history/economics sometime after then, but before Carter. Ya know, back in the good ole days when America was "great" and everything was hunky-dory"
Seems like a very valid interpretation of what you wrote, doofus.
Nowhere in that statement do I call for anyone to be punished. I think it's totally possible to acknowledge a historical event and learn from it without handing down judgements and sentences to people alive today. I also think you should be able to examine these same events without feeling any personal responsibility or guilt
You mean when the Apache were warring with the Sioux? Or the Vikings before that? Or the Giants before that? History is rough. This world was rarely, if ever, "hunky-dory".
Agreed, my anger isn't directed at people who died hundreds of years ago, but rather those today who falsely represent that era as some sort of lost paradise we should be trying to revive. Humans are insecure, paranoid and brutish, and we act even worse in numbers- this has always been the case. I don't think we'll ever escape that curse if those on the left and right don't acknowledge the atrocities caused by their respective -isms.
No one here made any such representation. You are swatting at farts in a wind tunnel.
Fair enough
Funny ain't it?
They dug up the giants here locally buried underneath the indian mounds.
Wherever they came from, they didn't look like nice beings.
Then destroyed the evidence.
What would make the masons dig up giant bones and destroy them?
Because it doesn't go along with the native america holohax false narative?
Man, have you seen the pictures from the museum, think it's in Scandinavia, of the 5' tall battle-axes! Will try to find a link.
My theory is the reptiles put them here to kill off the large predators that were eating the human slaves that were mining for them.
I have heard of some that had double sets of teeth and their skulls look to me to be like neathenderals so they were not bright.
But humans could not bring down a t rex, or a saber tooth tiger.
South Africa has hundreds of stacked stone monuments or living quarters.
Our history has been hidden from us and bullshit has replaced it.
Here it be
https://s8int.com/phile/giants26.html
Do you actually believe that bullshit about giants? Christ, and i ALREADY thought you were nuts.
You are very close mnded.
Ghost of Diogenes has been wrong about everything except this.
It is time for you to open your mind and do some research.
Giants are an absolute fact that has been meticulosly covered up.
Why?
Cui bono?
http://biblehub.com/genesis/6-4.htm
no fr-ckin sh-t
r