Tell me about Cultural Marxism, What is it?

A far-right fantasy

-cont
The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

-Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

Attached: 0C99E97A-D26B-4B3E-951D-FD660B0D752C.jpg (324x499, 27K)

>Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics.
Saying that there are Marxists who use Marxism to analyze culture isn’t the same thing as “cultural Marxism” as the far right imagines it. Analyzing how Harry Potter reflects class divisions isn’t the same thing as engineering cultural outputs designed to make white women want to fuck black guys in order to destroy the white race and usher in Judeo-Bolshevism.

cont.
-For another reference, see culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies

Inb4 you move the goalpost with the “o-okay cultural Marxism exist, but you don’t understand it!” Shill line

Attached: 96F50684-846F-4C6A-BF8D-29410CA30753.jpg (599x351, 131K)

This is just an impotent attempt at strawmanning. Ever notice how it’s only ever leftist who go on and on about some weirdo Jewish conspiracy?

I never said anything about a conspiracy, the fact is it's a memed to shit idea that is exaggerated in scope and influence

This.
Let us not go down a conspiracy rabbit hole. History should focus on actual history.
Look what got from, interesting stuff.

Attached: Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics.png (738x635, 39K)

Intersectionality is simply the logical conclusion to Marcuses ideas and the changing of the the proles and bourgeois to a race based/sex based ect. narrative.

You have no idea what cultural marxism is so you keep strawmanning this alt right Jew stuff, which I said nothing about.

Never mentioned the alt-right either, but feel free to keep bringing it up for no reason

How am I strawmanning? When people say cultural Marxism on the internet, they almost always mean a conspiracy theory involving a secret kabal of Jewish communists in media and academia who want to destroy western civilization by subverting culture. Saying that “well actually there is a thing called cultural Marxism” doesn’t mean anything because the real cultural Marxism isn’t anything like what the brainlets at Jow Forums says it is. It would be like if somebody said that dragons aren’t real, and you responded with “actually there are lizards called Komodo dragons checkmate commies”.

>Intersectionality is simply the logical conclusion to Marcuses ideas and the changing of the the proles and bourgeois to a race based/sex based ect. narrative.
Maybe, but that doesn’t mean it’s Marxism. If you remove proles and bourgeois then you’ve removed THE central concept of Marxist theory.

Why are you strawmanning instead of actually responding to what I actually said? Why do you keep going on about Jewish conspiracies?

Subversive Jews

It doesn’t remove proles and bougie, it simply redefined them as privileged (white, male, straight ect) and oppressed (female, trans, non white ect)

Never mentioned any conspiracy friend, but keep on accusing me of doing so, surely that makes me the guy strawmanning arguments

>Jewish conspiracies

Jews are conspirators

Cringe

Attached: 1554832568599.jpg (1773x1769, 290K)

I don’t understand why you can only obfuscate and shitpost. I noticed leftist do this in every single thread about this topic and it’s not really surprising. Do you want to engage in a conversation about this topic or do you just want to keep behaving like a jackass?

Mate all I've said is it's overhyped, you're the paranoid cunt going on about the alt-right and conspiracy theories in every response and accusing me of doing some shill bullshit

youtu.be/gIdBuK7_g3M

This is a good documentary that has some history in it.

The problem is it’s not a party or organization. Its adherents are nebulous and everywhere.

There’s no conspiracy or group you can trace or blame like Comintern or Free masons. It’s happened organically via the long march.
It’s never going to achieve its original goal which is wipe out religion and national identity in order to create the environment for communist revolution and state because the world Marxism exists in is gone. There are no workers in the west anymore.

Thus it’s a ghost of an ideology with no purpose or end game doing damage leading us to who knows where. If you hate right wingers though you can blame CM for causing a resurgence.

You may not like Republicans but the Nixon era paleo con la were dead and gone and all that was left was 2 neo-liberal parties. Now you have Far right nationalists on one side and this weird cultural Marxist influences left wing fighting the center.

>I noticed leftist
This is not your Jow Forums safe space, don't generalise like that.

Attached: Fuck_you.jpg (300x300, 13K)

You’re just shitposting and obfuscating though, do you actually have anything to say or add to the discussion?

Gay marriage, feminism, anti-racism, black lifes matter, atheism, progressism in general = Cultural marxim

>anime pic
>post is retarded and doesn’t even address the point I made
You have no reading comprehension skills

Application of Marxist lenses to culutural studies. It's basically like asking questions like "What class is the movie aimed at?", "Who made the movie? Does the movie reinforce capitalism?", "How does capitalism shape distribution" etc.

It's an irrelevant meme, that's been transformed into some kind of sinister conspiracy by American halfwits.

>everything the right wing believes is a conspiracy

Do you realize this is propaganda?
They do studies and found Blaming Fox News ans Conspiracy théories works to deflect criticism.

Anyway, it’s obviously real there is a whole history of published intellectual work that goes with it.

Being a decent human is Cultural marxim...

Attached: Try harder..gif (1000x773, 327K)

Is western civilization really so weak that a bunch of Jewish intellectuals writing about hegemony and culture can bring it down?

Because nobody ever denied that there were Marxists who analyzed culture, but that’s not what people mean when they say cultural Marxism.
It removes class as the central contradiction in society and the driving force of history. Once you do that you’re no longer dealing with Marxism. Intersectionality by definition proposes the “intersection” of various social hierarchies which all interact with one another on an equal basis. Marxism categorically denies this, and says that class antagonism is the central conflict from which all others stem.

No, you have no idea what it is and are trying to downplay and deflect. If you behave like shitheads, why are you surprised when no one likes you? Or is this a deliberate troll?

>Jow Forums bogeyman

Sorry fag there are right wing opinions that might exist where your eyes may read them.

If you weren’t shilling such an extreme ideology they wouldn’t even exist. They’d be playing video games and not caring like in the 90s

Oppression is the foundation of western society. If someone writes against oppression then, yes, they're helping to bring western society down as a whole.

>you have no idea what it is

I do have an idea. What does it mean according to you?

Yes, apparently movie's like Black Panther are going to cuck the "white race" into oblivion

Lol a tax incentive to butt fuck isn’t being a good person. You’ve been brain washed hard.

*society
Society is oppression western or otherwise

>It removes class as the central contradiction in society and the driving force of history.
No it doesn’t, it just redefined class. You still want to just keep pretending this was just some folk art of movie reviews when this is the one and only strand of leftist still alive in the west.

You realize calling pol a bogeyman in a thread full of Jow Forumstards only outs you as one, or is to complex for you to comprehend?

Attached: Pol needs to stop.jpg (1024x887, 175K)

How do you feel about the fact that Douglas Kellner, a professor who specializes in critical theory and who has himself referred to his own ideas as cultural Marxism, disagrees with you impotent attempt as downplaying this as just some movie reviewers?

>tax incentive
I don't get this meme, you get taxed more if you're married, unless one of you earns way less

>No it doesn’t, it just redefined class.
No it doesn’t. No Marxist has ever said that trans people or blacks form a class unto themselves, because classes are defined by material circumstances and your place in the process of production, not by nebulous social categories like race or gender identity. You could say that it keeps the oppressor/oppressed dynamic and replaces class with various social groups, but then it’s still not Marxism.

Then you're a brainlet pretending to be intelligent.

Has it ever occurred to you that the only reason why you have that image saved is because you're probably mentally ill?

Yes it does. This isn’t a conversation between equals, this is me educating you on about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

youtu.be/bkGJyxdCexs

Marxism without class isn’t Marxism.
You might as well talk about non-racist Nazism

>Yes it does.
How does it? Explain it to me if you’re so smart. Did Marcuse say that white workers and black workers were separate classes according to the Marxist definition?

Attached: Cry some more.gif (450x253, 103K)

>...employed the marxian theory to analyze CULTURAL FORMS in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history

Seems like he said the same thing, except in a more elaborate way.

>pedophilia is being a decent human being

youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk

youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs

This is a good expose on the whole cultural Marxist thing. The whole SJW phenomenon is cultural marxism, that activism hysteria and paranoia is simply applied critical theory through an intersectional framework of looking at the world. All the white privilege or male privilege or cis privilege is all rooted in that.

>Jow Forumstards are genuinely that dumb.

YouTube, because you have no real argument.

Attached: lol02.gif (500x246, 929K)

>I fucking hate progressive leftists, they lowered the age of consent!
>I fucking hate progressive leftists, they want to fuck underage girls!
Can someone explain this shit to me?

It's a strawman

Proles are exploited and abused by the capitalist bourgeois. Those are the classes. Marcuse saw that the workers were seeing their quality of life improving and were therefore no longer a subversive element of society that would seek to promote Marxist ideas, so he turned to “societal rejects” or those ostracized by things like racism or sexism, and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles. This idea was taken to its logical conclusion by Kimberly Crenshaw when she developed intersectionality, which was the idea that someone could be oppressed by multiple factors, like she was a black woman, so she was a victim of racism and sexism. This is where the whole “I’m more oppressed than you” dick measuring thing the social justice crowd has comes from. This is also why leftist don’t care about the white working class anymore and in fact despise them.

How is a video not an argument? Especially when all you have is reddit tier sassy shitposting?

>and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles.

That makes no fucking sense. At least do bother parts of his text where he's meant to say that.

I get it, you have nothing left other than playing stupid. It’s odd how butthurt just discussing this topic makes leftypol

Here’s a good lecture on intersectionality for anyone interested
youtu.be/_AvyqUOKhGA

>Asking for sources is "playing stupid"

huh?

>he turned to “societal rejects” or those ostracized by things like racism or sexism, and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles.
Except that doesn’t work because Marx didn’t focus on proletarians because they were downtrodden or poor victims or anything, but because he saw them as the revolutionary class due to their place in production.
The core of Marx’s analysis, whether he was right or wrong, was capital and it’s reproduction wage labor.
Once you abandon that you’re not dealing with Marxism in any meaningful sense

Lol k

>Proles are exploited and abused by the capitalist bourgeois. Those are the classes. Marcuse saw that the workers were seeing their quality of life improving and were therefore no longer a subversive element of society that would seek to promote Marxist ideas, so he turned to “societal rejects” or those ostracized by things like racism or sexism, and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles.
You’re contradicting yourself here. You just said that Marcuse maintained that the only two classes in the West were capitalists and proles. If that’s the case, then removing the workers as the revolutionary subject and assigning that role to social rejects without trying to claim that said rejects are a separate class in economic terms (like say, Sakai does) is removing class as the primary antagonism of society, and is therefore not Marxism. Under intersectional theory social rejects may occupy a position similar to proles in Marxist theory, but an oppressor/oppressed dynamic isn’t enough to make something Marxism.

>but because he saw them as the revolutionary class due to their place in production
So did you just not read the part where I explained that Marcuse saw the working class as comfortably middle class and therefor no longer a viable route for subversive ideas?

That’s not me making contradictions, that’s Marxist scrambling to save their pseudo economic ideology. I know this idea is stupid, I’m just explaining what they actually believe

>where I explained that Marcuse
We don't need to read it. We need that part when Marcuse explained that.

Ok but did you read the part where I explained that Marcuse saw the working class as comfortably middle class and therefor no longer a viable route for subversive ideas?

Yes and I chose to ignore it.

Not true at all.

Cultural Marxism is about empowering the minority in every situation it presents itselt, and it just so happens that those groups the last user mentioned are the current minority. But Marxism doesn't look at individuals, only groups. Marxism defends anyone who belongs to a minority, sinner or saint.

>I choose to ignore anything that proves me wrong
Lol

>That’s not me making contradictions,
That is a contradiction, you said that Marcuse and his ilk didn’t remove class as the central social antagonism, but you also said they never redefined class or saw social rejects as a class separate from the other two classes. So in other words, they did replace class, and therefor stopped being Marxists.
>that’s Marxist scrambling to save their pseudo economic ideology.
Except that you’re talking about is pretty much unique to Marcuse. Most other Marxists, even other members of the Frankfurt School, didn’t come to the same conclusions. For example Adorno never said that social rejects were a revolutionary subject, and other Western Marxists like Althusser never said that the workers had stopped being the revolutionary subject.

If it proved anything wrong, then I wouldn't ignore it.

It did prove your entire point wrong. You’re just too immature to acknowledge is which is why you are behaving like a child having a hissy fit

>and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles.
Which makes absolute no fucking sense "in a Marxist lense". Peasants and landlords or wage workers and capitalists are economic categories pertaining to the process of production, this cannot be translated into non-economic categories of "has different sexuality" or "wants to chop his dick off".

>Marcuse saw that the workers were seeing their quality of life improving and were therefore no longer a subversive element of society that would seek to promote Marxist ideas, so he turned to “societal rejects” or those ostracized by things like racism or sexism, and tried to frame their discrimination in a Marxist lense, where they are the proles.
That’s what I said. You’re just arguing semantics

Not him, but all you've done is say Marcuse said this shit without providing even a single quote of him doing so

>It did prove your entire point wrong.
You are shooting blanks, pal. Substantiate your opinion with primary sources and then your opinion might wield some gravity.

this cannot be translated into non-economic categories of "has different sexuality" or "wants to chop his dick off".
And yet, the Frankfurt school did, which is why we have pic related or people like contrapoints

Attached: A15AAA90-6035-4A55-8770-DF4C81AAE725.jpg (1200x1185, 165K)

If you don’t have any idea who Marcuse is then why are you arguing about him?

I highly doubt a single one of those fuckwits has read anything authored by the Frankfurt school, or any school at all for that matter
This is /his/, you need to back your shit up or pack your shit up

I've been saying so for quite some time. No one read him, yet he's some kind of superduper cultural manipulator responsible for American civil rights movement and it's offshots.

And how exactly trannies talking about tranny stuff on discord became a "class" capable of carrying out the economic tasks like abolishing capitalist mode of production and associated phenomena like wage labour? Because I really don't see the connection.

Marx didn’t think the working class was “a viable route for subversive ideas”. He thought the working class was revolutionary by virtue of being the working class with all it entailed (working for wages, owning no property, etc.).
It just doesn’t work if you take another random group and slot them in, the analysis falls apart

>I highly doubt a single one of those fuckwits has read anything authored by the Frankfurt school, or any school at all for that matter
Completely irrelevant to the fact that they are the end result of it

I know user. I’m not advocating for cultural marxism, I’m just explaining what that belief system is and how it evolved

>Marx didn’t think the working class was “a viable route for subversive ideas”. He thought the working class was revolutionary by virtue of being the working class with all it entailed (working for wages, owning no property, etc.).
Okay and by the 1950s in America, those workers actually saw their quality of life go up and had such great wages that they were able to purchase property and even luxury items like radios, cars, TVs, ect.

So if the workers are doing great, this either means Marxist have to admit they were wrong or they have to rewrite their views

>they are the end result of it
Are they though? They seem to be the result of unbridled hedonism and commodity fetishism wrapped in a soft left package

>I’m just explaining what that belief system is and how it evolved
No you’re talking out your ass about shit you don’t understand. If they replace economic categories as the central conflict that drives history, then they aren’t Marxists. Simple as.