How do people deny cultural marxism when quotes like pic related exist
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
How do people deny cultural marxism when quotes like pic related exist
How do people deny cultural marxism when quotes like pic related exist
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>How do people deny cultural marxism when quotes like pic related exist
Because it serves big corporations just as well.
So, who is using who?
The people denying it here are typically Marxists who think they cams to Marxism through a brilliant application of their own reason rather than being culturally induced into it.
It is difficult to align the thoughts of Adorno, Derrida, de Man, and Benjamin on anything, particularly Marxism. That there is a coterie of leftists in the academy and in critical theory departments is irrefutable, but they tend to read different work, e.g. Jacques Rancière, Peter Sloterdijk, Friedrich Kittler, Mladen Dolar, etc. In other words, it exists, but it can be easily strawmanned, and those who are participants pretend they do not know what you mean when you accuse them because of these nuances.
Derrida wasn't really a Marxist thoughbeit, he was a postmodern literary theorist. Almost every academic must engage with Marx or risk not being taken seriously. It's the nature of the beast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauntology#:~:text=Hauntology%20(a%20portmanteau%20of%20haunting,the%20manner%20of%20a%20ghost.
>tfw I still see academics using "hauntology" every day
How is it possible to be so fricking cringe
The fact that academics all insist you "engage" with Marx is further evidence in favour of the thesis. You also had to say how your work engaged with dialectical materialism in the USSR.
Because when arguing with a lefty on what cultural Marxism is and whether or not it exists, the lefty denies it exists on the grounds that cultural Marxism goes against their platonic ideal of Marxism. Odd people.
They for certain infiltrated the catholic church.
Socialism and Christianity are basically the same anyways. Same cuck mentality going on there read Nietzsche.
>Socialism and Christianity are basically the same
I can never tell whether this is bait or not. Either you have never read the gospels or you're baiting. There's literally no in between
He means in the sense that they both advocate for slave morality
I would say that it is because of something as simple as that Marxists like Gramsci sought to subvert society to implement a Marxist regime like the Soviet Union.
While the postmodernist left renounces any type of real political revolution and seeks to adhere to and synthesize with capitalist society.
Part of the ideological horrors seen today can even be traced back to the constitution of the United States and the british Whigs.
>Part of the ideological horrors seen today can even be traced back to the constitution of the United States and the british Whigs
Like what?
From Ockham's nominalism to transhumanism through "gender ideology". Liberalism, which is basically the Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition that defends the emancipation of the "individual" who is considered politically sovereign, above any type of community collectivity (or "socialism", as the Kantian nominalist of Mises would say). The common Marxist denominator is also "liberation", that is, liberal freedom. Marx is in the same enlightened tradition that exalts idols, in his case economics.
Both positions can be synthesized in the American corniness of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Because it's used as a polemic epithet to stifle understanding of the issues, rather than to enlighten and give insight and deepen understanding. Take as example your OP, labelling Derrida a Marxist doens't increase your understanding of Marx, Derrida, Marxism, or deconstructionism and post-structuralism. Marx is a figure in the history of ideas, everyone that follows Marx will consider him in some way. That doesn't mean they are in the Marxist school even when the legacy is great: the modern historian who considers economics as powerful mover of events is heavily in debt to Marx, yet they need not be a Marxist or hold positions anywhere near close to Marx.
By cultural Marxism people typically mean a soft-Marcusean liberalism. Marcuse and others may have their origins in Marxism, but to understand them as they actually are requires more than polemic epithets. They have moved a long way from Marx and are in large debt to other sources from both before and after Marx that Marx would not have agreed are compatible with his system as he understood and constructed it.
You do yourself a disservice by staying within the surface level talking points of political screamers. To understand Marxism, and its philosophical history up to and including Marcuse, read 'Main Currents of Marxism' by Kolakowski.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Currents_of_Marxism
You preach insight yet are contending Marx is the originator or even best expositor of the concept that the economy is somehow important to events, which is a trivial observation made by many. Marx generated economism, not that idea itself.
>which is a trivial observation made by many
Only because of Marx, he did invent it. It is trivial now because Marx made the case for the radical impact of economics on history that others were forced to consider the proper role of economics in history. All historeography is in debt to Marx's contribution to the history of ideas here.
Again read Kolakowski for a proper understanding of what you are talking about rather than the cant of polemical talking points for screamers.
There is a lot of economic thought that predates Marx going back to antiquity, they certainly considered it important. Are you suggesting that people didn't think the wealth of nations mattered? He's not the first revolutionary socialist either. Marx added shit like the idea of base and superstructure which is the notion that the entire society is some kind of shadowy epiphenomenon of the economy that also randomly becomes causally efficacious on the economy at unspecified points in history which is just a mess of confusion. And socialist luminary de Sade originated the idea of the bourgeoisie battling the proletariat and basically everyone else as crucial.
because it implies that anyone sociable actually reads marx, lacan, derrida, etc. instead of realizing that it takes great autism to understand derrida et al.
Woke ideology in the masses didn't just spring up de novo though. The autistic academics were a kind of vanguard.
at that point, its such watered down drivel that it can hardly be named marxism. the average college student is an illiterate moron that will only retain a vaguely marxist sentiment and maybe some foucault at most.
seriously, i can only imagine that a college student might understand some basic idea of class hierarchies and class consciousness but there's barely any marxism in it.
marx mainly sperged out over economy and trying to claim that capitalism leads to its own downfall, no student is going to pay attention to any deeper economics.
autistic academics will only succeed at mentoring a handful of students into becoming further autistic academics.
the average college student is dumb as rocks and just thinks about "white = bad", "rich = bad", the only marxist characteristic is loathing rich people.
People resort to this kind of genealogy because it seems strange that people would spontaneously begin to preach against themselves without a powerful ideological motivator that seems like it must have come from somewhere.
it obviously became downstream from marx but my point is that the average college student is too moronic for any marx sans manifesto.
"woke/liberal ideology" is a more apt term, since the bulk of it is random gender/sex racism crap. the only marxist bit of it is the envious hatred of rich people.
The basic idea is that it's an expansion of the idea of an oppressor and an oppressed to race gender etc. LThat's vaguely plausible.
but surely oppressor/oppressed dynamics have been discussed before marx, even if marx popularized class oppression.
i'd say weber was a larger influence. it seems to me that marx is referenced as a red scare tactic rather than intellectual honesty.
Intersectionality is a key concept for the woke masses, which came from Kimberle Crenshaw who drew on critical race theory which drew on critical legal studies which drew on the Frankfurt school. There's a link, albeit arguably tenuous.
Because they'll just say it's fake or that it's been deboonked by snopes. Any sort of concrete proof that you throw their way (and there's a shit ton) they'll just have an ADL approved quote to debunk it and that's the end of that. I unironically think they will never wake up, even if your pic related spat on their face and shat on their bed.
That sentence has no meaning.
They know it's true, and are lying.