Cultural Marxism

Cultural marxism is a method of social exercises with the end goal of demoralizing the beleif systems and norms of Americans, particularly white heterosexuals. Although it was attemped once in the 60's, it was quickly rebuked due to anti-communist sentiment in America.
>FFWD 40 years
The "professors" of many current universities (In particular Berkeley and NYU) Were the former protesters of the 60's who decided to try to indoctrinate current students with propaganda involving criticism of anything heterosexual, white, male,Christian or patriotic. This involved "shaming" people for having the aforementioned qualities, and attempting to eradicate any cultural references that maintain such a cohesion.

Attached: Bundy-Colorado.jpg (2048x1371, 663K)

"Shaming" was attempted by claiming to be a victim, pic related. As long as people believe you are somehow suffering at the hands of others, then you can get away with nearly any social transgression. All you have to do is claim you are oppressed. Then, spread your mantra of shameless degeneracy upon the sympathetic multitudes who are incapable of critical thinking.

Attached: victim.png (262x161, 17K)

Hi OP, you must be new here

And suddenly, Jamal the crack dealer who was shot by the police, was actually a varsity high school student who was walking to church when the evil police attacked him for being black. Or the mentally ill tranny who stalks children is suddenly only an advocate for equality and love, and just wants to use the ladies room. Or Jose' who was deported four times from the U.S. and recently arrested for shooting a white American citizen, was just trying to escape the terrors of his native Guatemala, thousands of miles away.
Or how Rabbi goldstien came home to find hate speech painted on the walls of his home, but the same color paint could be found on his hands...

Attached: a-notice-to-all-citizens-of-the-united-states-of-15378798.png (500x522, 52K)

Jewish poor vs rich revolutions failed so they replaced poor with any minority and rich with the west

yes and no, i used to come here all the time when i was younger. i know you guys won't bullshit me on things which is why i ask here. or at least, if anyone does try to bullshit me, they'll get smashed by the people here who give a shit with logic and reason.

It's a series of cultural efforts directed towards the destruction of the social structures that sustain capitalism.

Family, church and nation are the enemies to beat. Without those Marxism can take hold more effectively.

Every new law since the 50s has gone in this direction pretty much.

More on the topic of family to prove that this is not really a tin-foil concept:

>Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

In order to destroy hierarchies Marxists need to destroy families first. Divorcy laws, welfare state, feminism, late term motherhood, sexual revolution. Try to think about how many of these ideas and similar have been pushed from cultural media and thus laws (law follows culture) and how damaging they are to the incentives of formation of families. If you remove all the benefits of having a family you remove its necessity. Pretty much what they did to the church when the state took over charity, education and community building.

cultural marxism
A social and political movement that promotes unreason and irrationality through the guise of various 'causes', often promoted by so-called 'social justice warriors'. These causes and their proponents are often contradictory and are almost never rooted in fact. Indeed, true argument or discussion with proponents of these causes is almost impossible, as most attempts at discourse descend quickly into shouting, name-calling and chanting of slogans.

Otherwise known as the 'regressive Left' - a play on their contradictory nature, specifically on how SJWs describe themselves as 'progressive' yet display strong authoritarian, 'regressive' tendencies. This term is even often used by members of the true Left who take reasonable stances based on logic and evidence, and are eager to distance themselves from the fanatics who have effectively hijacked their side of the political spectrum.

NOTE: Naturally, Cultural Marxism itself is described by SJWs as a 'conspiracy theory', in an attempt to delegitimise their critics.
Some examples of Cultural Marxism include:

- Political Correctness.

- Privilege.

- Third-Wave Feminism.

- Anti-Capitalism.

FACT: All able-bodied citizens in the Soviet Union had to work. That was the law.

Attached: the revolution will happen over generations juice.png (1024x768, 287K)

Attached: Frankfurt school degeneracy.png (1598x1600, 3.01M)

It's communism without the class element. It's no longer the mean capitalists against the proletariat but equality of culture. Fags must be treated the same as straights, women as men, trannies and real women, you get the point. It basically replaces economics with culture.

Its a right wing pejorative. There is something called "cultural marxism", but its not really Marxism since it barely has anything to do with marx.

>the perpetuation of the social structures that sustain capitalism.
ftfy. Cultural marxists love big tech, NGOs, private uni, MIC, etc.
Or you could switch out capitalism for nationalism.

I highly doubt he ever said that, but even if he did, this is completely contradictory to marxism. It violates the first law of dialectical materialism, which is quantitative change becoming qualitative change.

>cultural marxism
>Anti-Capitalism
lol no it isn't, it's the result of a compromise between capitalists and communists, whydo you think multi billion dollar corporations support this stuff? You think they want less profits? Anyone with an actual critique of capitalism gets ostracized and relegated to spots on Russia Today or some shit.

They love the state first and foremost and use and infiltrate big tech to destroy Capitalism, not to reinforce it.

Go ahead and tell me how big tech is helping the perpetuation of Capitalism by attacking it at every occasion they have through their massive platforms.

It's marxism, but applied to cultures instead of economies.

Based jew spilling the beans

>everyone holds hands and eats together
in reality
>everyone holds hands and eats together but then some hoard more of the food but thats okay because they are in charge then it gets so bad it collapse and then we need to try again cuz

Nice VPN

Same shit as Bolshevik Culture in Weimar.

>tell me how big tech is helping the perpetuation of Capitalism by attacking it at every occasion
How about showing me one example of that ever happening? Woke Capital twitter account shows the EXACT opposite of what you are claiming.

This guy knows what's up. They infiltrate big tech to harness the power for THEMSELVES, not to destroy it. If you are using another definition of capitalism like how you autistic ancaps like to do, then that's the only way your argument holds water, barely.

Marx was a jew, cultural marxism is communism in a cultural form rather than economic. The end goal is world jewish domination though, so it has little to do with economics or culture. Also note the hand sign that Marx is doing in that pic, he was a freemason.

Ah yes, the infamous socialist state of the Wiemar Republic that the socialists tried to overthrow.

It's invalid to describe Marxism in a cultural sense. The whole purpose of this ideology, and various others, is to destroy the culture people already obtain.

Marxism is very similar to various other ideologies, such as freudism, capitalism, and Darwinism, b/c there's no way to prove them wrong. If I were to say the teachings of freudism are wrong, the counter is I'm acting out of my sexuality; in the same sense, if I attempt to prove Marxism wrong, I'm speaking out of my class position.

Now what's the point of these Ideologies? Well, I think they're an attempt to destroy destiny in peoples lives. What replaces destiny is causality. Once this is accomplished, you're able to control people by influencing their environment.

Sure, there will be anomalies in the most extreme circumstance. But It's a lot easier to control people when you've stripped the people who make up your sphere of influence.

I fear for the west b/c of the impact materialism has upon people. It's very close to what I've already described in system of control. People aren't going to act out if you're able to control basic pacification. And like I said, sure there will be anomalies, but, for the most part, people will follow along with the system controlling them. They will never act out if they believe their entire existence revolves around these systems of control.

This is complete nonsense.

here faggot. now go away and learn something

Attached: 1509663218145.png (814x764, 85K)

>It's invalid to describe Marxism in a cultural sense.
>The whole purpose of this ideology, and various others, is to destroy the culture people already obtain.
Sounds to me like you just described it, guy.

Notice how you get no engagement with your posts? It's because what you post and the flag you post under is complete nonsense.

Attached: mem.gif (420x300, 3.2M)

iirc, it was the 1918 Communist Revolution in Germany that led to the Kaiser being deposed which led to the Weimar Republic. Only the communists couldn't consolidate complete power like they did in Russia.

Incorrect. Its because right wingers aren't bothered about what's right or wrong, nor do they want to engage in debate. Take your post. I highly, highly doubt you've ever read anything Marx or Engles ever wrote or anything any marxist has said beyond what Jordon Peterson told you. Take your argument about "destiny". OK, Marxism doesn't acknowledge a metaphysical destiny, like in a spiritual way. But Marxism definitely supports pre-determination.

> it was the 1918 Communist Revolution in Germany that led to the Kaiser being deposed
No, it wasn't. Soldiers in toward the end of WW1 beginning to defy the government and declare their own soviets certainly pressured the bourgeoisie to depose the aristocracy and restore order, but a social democratic state is not what communists wanted. And it wasn't just in Germany, barring Britain, WW1 basically annihilated the aristocratic class all over Europe because they proved they couldn't deal with modern warfare.

(You)

>"Incorrect."
>proceeds to make a bunch of incorrect assumptions
Why do shitlibs/anarchists think JBP is our idol? it's so grug-brained.

Attached: 1528168877667.jpg (398x398, 36K)

>Its because right wingers aren't bothered about what's right or wrong, nor do they want to engage in debate.
How many people have died by negligence or malice under communism again? And who is it that violently tries to shut down speech and refused to debate opposition figures? If any leftists even try to talk to a right winger ytou spastics freak out and say they're platforming hate, shut your hole retard.

Attached: 5b39983fd9f63.jpg (1452x1448, 271K)

>>Could you guys explain cultural marxism to me?
Everything has be the same, therefore we must MAKE it the same by force.

Attached: fzdgxfdgf.jpg (818x539, 97K)

Fucking lazy bastard, ok;

Look up the people who pushed it, look up their biography, their family history. As lazy as you are I'll help you here;

Karl Marx, author of the communist manifesto, was born as Karl Mordechai, the son of rabbi Herschel Mordechai. Mordechai is also the name of the jewish hero who helped corrupt the Persian government. Similar to what the communist did to the REAL russian government. And finally similar what they tried to do to Germany not long after, before running into Hitler.

Leon Trotsky, leader and founder of the Red Army, was born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein. The son of wealthy jews. All other high members of the Red Army were also jews.

Top jews right there, but the list goes on and on and on and on. LOOK INTO IT.

YOU FUCKING MONGOLOIDS

I'm sorry OP are you are asking nicely, but people are so fucking uninformed and brainwashed today its MENTAL.

ANY OTHER FUCKING QUESTION ABOUT THE KIKES AND THEIR GOVERNMENT DESTROYING? WANT TO TALK ABOUT AMERICA? ASSASSINATED PRESIDENTS BY JEWISH INFILTRATORS?

LOOK AT PEOPLE WHO CHANGE THEIR NAME
LOOK AT PEOPLE WHO CHANGE THEIR NAME
ONCE MORE
LOOK
AT
PEOPLE
WHO
CHANGE
THEIR
NAME

Attached: pol2.jpg (924x9999, 3.15M)

>Soldiers in toward the end of WW1 beginning to defy the government
but that's objectively and factually wrong. Communist faction in the SPD pushed for Revolution since the onset of war and targeted factory workers rather than soldiers. The soldiers came back from the war in the form of Freikorps and fought the communists who at one point held, I think, Munich.

10/10

>bunch of professors
like who?

OK, Evola or Hitler then. Lets say they were your inspirations. What fucking qualification did Hitler have to start commenting on Marxism? Stalin became a Marxist at 16 and his entire life was dedicated to it, he spent the first half of his life in and out of prison, writing articles, organizing strikes, debating other revolutionaries and politicians about marxism and philosophy, he fought a revolution, he was a general in the civil war. Hitler had done none of this. I'm not saying you have to know everything to comment on Marxism, but Hitler clearly didn't have a fucking clue about anything, he was just making up lies and slander for his industrialist handlers.

Oh great, another fake quote.

>How many people have died by negligence or malice under communism again?
None.

>who is it that violently tries to shut down speech and refused to debate opposition figures?
Refusing debate isn't against free speech, and the ones suppressing free speech are both capitalists and socialists. There can be no true free speech as long as class struggle exists. However, Marxists advocate open discussion and self-criticism while fascists don't.

>ytou spastics freak out and say they're platforming hate, shut your hole retard.
Those are post-modernists, not socialists.

No it isn't. The first proclaimed soviet (French and Russian soldiers had tried to do it earlier, though they didn't call them soviets) ever, even before the Russian soviets, was in the Kreigsmarine.

show us your flag, kike

>muh not REAL socialism
Who could have predicted that response? How fundamentally flawed marxism must be if it's been tried countless times and never been achieved.

Attached: b.jpg (868x868, 116K)

It isn't a thing.

There is no "Cultural Marxism" because Marx never made such a thing.

Attached: 1560341771563.png (414x419, 273K)

>What fucking qualification did Hitler have to start commenting on Marxism?
By being the subject that had the most to lose under such a political system. When you have no ties to the culture or heritage of the people you are ruling over, you have no regrets for the vast famine and liberty violations you will soon impose onto the people who DO have ties to the culture and heritage.
>Hitler clearly didn't have a fucking clue about anything
But he became chancellor anyway, because of the love for his own people, something you faggots will never have. That should speak volumes over someone like Stalin who spent his life trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Marxism essentially splits people up into two groups, one is opressed and the other opressor. It's usually used with moving goalpoasts to take whole countries over, using rich and poor as the two groups. The rich oppressing the poor, but again moving goaloasts ensures everyone can be targeted by the machine eventually. In the case of "cultural Marxism" or "identity politics" the color of your skin or political standing can be used as grounds as evidence in your guiltyness as an opressor of some sort.

Attached: Quiz.jpg (778x736, 100K)

>The first proclaimed soviet ever, even before the Russian soviets, was in the Kreigsmarine
first I've heard of this one, source?

No-one even said that. You just can't argue with resorting to strawmen or memes.

>By being the subject that had the most to lose under such a political system
I don't really get what you're trying to say in this paragraph. Are you saying Hitler had no regrets for famine or liberty violatons because he was Austrian?

>But he became chancellor anyway, because of the love for his own people
No, its because he coincidentally impressed Draxler with his rhetoric and Draxler funded his political party. Hitler didn't love the German people, he killed 5 million of them so that Germany's major capitalists could become extremely rich through slave labour.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiel_mutiny

>those are post-modernists, not socialists
You're full of shit, plenty of socialists try to shut down speech and harassing someone for attempting to speak to a fascist most certainly is against free speech. Why has only one socialist spoken to Eric Striker and why did he have to do it anonymously?

youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4

>Are you saying Hitler had no regrets for famine or liberty violatons because he was Austrian?
I'm saying Stalin had no regrets for famine or liberty violations because he was Ossetian and Georgian, and not Russian, just like the rest of the Bolsheviks who were either not Russian, and/or married to Jews.
>Hitler didn't love the German people, he killed 5 million of them so that Germany's major capitalists could become extremely rich through slave labour.
That sounds more like the SU and wall street investors like Jacob Schiff to me, guy.

media.zencast.fm/the-people-s-square/episodes/40
The socialist.

Classical Marxism saught to foment a revolution by agitating along economic line, to pit lower, middle, and upper classes against one another, and use the resulting chaos to seize power.

Power was always the only goal and purpose of Marxism, all the "economic theory" was just a means to that end, a method used to overthrow the existing power structures.

Cultural Marxism is essentialy the same, but the agitation is done along cultural lines. The purpose is the same.

Post-modernism has almost nothing to do with marxism. Post-modernist takes its major inspirations from Nietzsche mostly. It and marxism are irreconcilable since marxism is materialist while post-modernism isn't.

>Why has only one socialist spoken to Eric Striker and why did he have to do it anonymously?
I don't even know who that is.

>Stalin had no regrets for famine or liberty violations because he was Ossetian and Georgian
What famine or liberty violations? The 1932 famine was at first natural, and then made worse by the kulak class.

>just like the rest of the Bolsheviks who were either not Russian, and/or married to Jews.
Well they weren't. I mean maybe quite a few weren't Russian, but that's Russia's fault for being an empire. Georgia was part of the Russian empire during Stalin's time.

>That sounds more like the SU and wall street investors like Jacob Schiff
You mean the same Jacob Schiff whop rescinded all his money and demanded it all back after the bolsheviks overthrew the kerensky government? Jacob Schiff funded the Kerensky government because he thought Russia would become a modern liberal capitalist nation, not because he supported communism.

The shortest in-dept summary possible:

It is jewish mental horseshit fantasy to divide and conquer a government and country.

Attached: Q.png (848x702, 621K)

>deny
>deny
>deny
We're just not going to agree here, guy. You think class is the foundation of identity and has been the means of all historical social conflict, and I entirely disagree.

>Kiel Mutiny
>1918
>Other seamen, soldiers and workers, in solidarity with the arrested, began electing workers' and soldiers' councils modeled after the Soviets of the Russian Revolution of 1917

you said in that they were soviet before soviets existed. it was a group of sailors who didn't want to go on an unsanctioned attack while peace negotiations were underway. You're avoiding the fact that communist factions in Germany had organised mass strikes in factories for years and distributed communist propganda across the Empire.

The revolution was planned for years, they used the mutiny as a trigger point because they believed, incorrectly, that it was time for a communist revolution in Germany as Marx believed that a german communist revolution would occur either before, or along with Russia. It ultimately utterly failed as the nationalist freikorps pushed their shit in. The only thing they achieved was the abolition of both German monarchies and the disastrous Weimar Republic.

I'm not denying anything.

>You think class is the foundation of identity
In certain contexts yes, not always.

>has been the means of all historical social conflict
No I don't. But its certainly the primary one.

>Post-modernism has almost nothing to do with marxism. Post-modernist takes its major inspirations from Nietzsche mostly. It and marxism are irreconcilable since marxism is materialist while post-modernism isn't.
I know, i'm saying socialists do shut down speech, putting fascists (or anyone who speaks out against the state, really) in gulags is by definition shutting down speech.
>I don't even know who that is.
Of course you don't, because the left doesn't have serious debates with the right, my initial point, the left is guilty of what you accuse the right of. The leftist debate target of choice is the libertarian because they can be easily destroyed, while the cuck right's debate target is college students for the same reason. A leftists who will debate someone on the far right is extremely rare, while the far right will talk to anyone. Striker has a standing invitation to debate any leftist who's willing.

Yes, they were soviets. The word "soviet" means a "council".

>The revolution was planned for years
Yeah sure. I don't disagree, so they should have been.

>they used the mutiny as a trigger point
They used it as jumping off point. The kreigsmarine made that decision by themselves because by that point, the war had gone on too long and Europe and European capitalism was starting to fall apart.

>Marx believed that a german communist revolution would occur either before, or along with Russia
He didn't.

>ultimately utterly failed as the nationalist freikorps pushed their shit in
So? And the German revolution you're talking about happened in 1921, during the Wiemar republic.

>not always.
>No I don't.
Ok so can race possibly be the main motivation for social conflict we are seeing today in America, and not so much class? And if you can, can you also apply that lens throughout history?

It is a tool kit.
Using grievance politics over "equality" over any given topic to increase the social pressure against the majority populace to adopt socialist/communist policies.

At this point it's basically dehydrated communism, just add water. ( Or money). Pick any minority ethnicity, self destructive behavior, or assorted group with an axe to grind. Start exxagerating their problems. Start up numerous advocacy NGOs that harass every company, government entity or vocal individual with campaigning, slacktivism, protests, and slogans that sounds sugary and sweet on surface level for normie optics and is hard to fight publically without looking like an asshole. When the targets of your alinsky methods retreat from a sphere of influence to avoid your scorn, fill the void with your people, and continue the attack and the search for more funding. After a certain point you have enough cultural capital to mobilize individuals into violence on your behalf to be the stick counterpart to the advocacy carrot.

Once you fuck everything up and leave a wake of ruined lives. Pretend all the damage is the fault of capitalism or majority population, act like you had no hand in the damage, and start looking for new markets to spread to.

>shut down speech, putting fascists (or anyone who speaks out against the state, really) in gulags is by definition shutting down speech.
They didn't put anyone speaking against them in gulags, they put anyone advocating capitalism or fascism in gulags because they needed to defend the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie taking over again. And free speech doesn't exist in class conflict, it doesn't exist now and it won't in socialism.

>the left doesn't have serious debates with the right
Well not against random gamers. I mean, you're wrong because they do, Jason Unruhe recently debated Richard Spencer, but if you know its going to be a waste of time beforehand, what's the point? And I'm willing to bet Sriker is not asking actual marxists like the Finnish Bolshevik, Comrade Hakim, Jason Unruhe or Torvarisch Endymion to debate.

Yes. The USA was founded through settler colonialism and the use of black slavery and indigenous genocide to facilitate primitive accumulation (which is the process of the initial acquisition of capital). Throughout Europe, the former colonial world and China we've seen numerous national movements where the bourgeoisie and the proletariat united under a national banner to fight for self-determination. Lenin understood this, I mean it was WW1 that tore the Second Internationale apart because each countries delegation supported their own country and denied their country was the villain and asserted everyone else's was. That's why Lenin and Stalin developed socialism in one country.

>They didn't put anyone speaking against them in gulags
Don't fucking lie you piece of shit, Stalin sent his own family to the gulags to secure his power, the iron curtain fell.
>they put anyone advocating capitalism or fascism in gulags because they needed to defend the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie taking over again. And free speech doesn't exist in class conflict, it doesn't exist now and it won't in socialism.
>"It isn't shutting down speech because it's speech i don't like."
What a fucking retard you are.
>Well not against random gamers. I mean, you're wrong because they do, Jason Unruhe recently debated Richard Spencer, but if you know its going to be a waste of time beforehand, what's the point? And I'm willing to bet Sriker is not asking actual marxists like the Finnish Bolshevik, Comrade Hakim, Jason Unruhe or Torvarisch Endymion to debate.
The person in the podcast i posted is a Marxist-Leninist.

Right. so councils modelled on the Soviet councils in Russia were created before Soviet councils existed in Russia.

>He didn't.
Except that he did.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
>Marx and Engels had predicted that for a communist revolution to succeed in Russia, there would probably need to be a Western European communist revolution earlier or at least simultaneously.

>the German revolution you're talking about happened in 1921, during the Wiemar republic.
except that it didn't.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_State_of_Bavaria

I hate the "leftists are the real fascists" trope. But come on. You commie shits are always wailing about how evil the "fascists" are for doing a laundry list of terrible things. Censorship, book burnings, harassment and marginalization, unprovoked violence, propagandizing. When in just about every fucking case you guys excuse or celebrate those very exact things when done in the name of communism, just because the people you target don't want big daddy government to throw all their money down a hole and mismanage everyone's lives into the ground for the "greater good". Go fuck yourself.

>Stalin sent his own family to the gulags
This is complete horseshit, Stalin's Father died way before Stalin became General Secretary and his Mother was fine.

>The person in the podcast i posted
Which podcast if you don't mind me asking?

Well not really because Russians got workers councils from Europe.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
According to some random guy. If you actually read Marx, he said the most developed nations were the most likely for revolution to happen, not that Western Europe communist revolution had to happen for communist revolution, that is Trotskyism.

>except that it didn't.
Freikorps weren't used against the People's State of Bavaria.

That's not why we hate fascists, though I don't think communists ever engaged in book burning. The fact is that all those things happen to any state when its threatened.

So this thread already has like 78 post and no one has explained what cultural marxism is, quoted intellectuals or books or anything beyond da joos.

Attached: 6c2.png (680x505, 655K)

Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimmer. Apparently an “academic” named John Rawls is responsible for a lot of the prevailing “narrative-driven thought” of late but he came later and I haven’t read quite that far into enemy literature

>So this thread already has like 78 post and no one has explained what cultural marxism is,
Typical. You might get 300 replies with no actual discussion of what Cultural Marxism is.

hacks like Peterson throw it around to describe things they don't like that usually have nothing to do with Marx or Marxism - it's their version of screeching the words "alt right".

no one on Jow Forums knows what marxism is much less cultural marxism you'd be better served researching the topic yourself

His father and mother weren't his only family, the most notable one was his son's wife. He also refused to trade a POW for the same son when he was captured, the POW was a lower rank, shows how much he cared about his blood.
>Which podcast if you don't mind me asking?

But what about ? Listing a couple names is a good start, unless you actually know what they said.

y'know, it's the jews making me feel bad for wanting to lynch niggers and stuff

Attached: kate millett.jpg (826x906, 218K)

Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory.

>frankfurt school
>critical theory
>jewish bolshevism
>herbert marcuse
>horkheimer
>adorno
>authoritarian personality

Read up OP

Attached: 1559771343099.jpg (250x380, 34K)

Neo Bolchevism

White supremacist canard.

Which of his son's wife? And no, he didn't "have his son killed", the Nazis captured his son and then offered to to exchange him for General Paulus, to which he refused. In Stalin's own words:

>"After the war, a Georgian confidant plucked up the courage to ask Stalin if the Paulus offer was a myth.
>"He "hung his head," answering "in a sad, piercing voice": "Not a myth... Just think how many sons ended in camps! Who would swap them for Paulus? Were they worse than Yakov? I had to refuse.... What would they have said of me, our millions of Party fathers, if having forgotten about them, I had agreed to swapping Yakov? No, I had no right...."

>podcast
I don't know this person, do you have a timestamp for where you want me to listen?

>Well not really because Russians got workers councils from Europe
so unions are proto-Soviet councils now?

>According to some random guy
according to soviet historian Dmitri Volkogonov

>Freikorps weren't used against the People's State of Bavaria
was talking about the general communist revolution of 1918-1919, you knew that, stop being obtuse and moving goal posts. Freikorps were pushing commie shit in across the country before they got to Bavaria, including executing two of the communist leaders Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht in January 1919.

>Typical. You might get 300 replies with no actual discussion of what Cultural Marxism is.
imo, it's the idea of bringing Marxism into popular culture through increasing saturation of media and education. It has either been co-opted by some groups to spread bizarre concepts like gender identity and separation of sex and gender, breakdown of traditional values, etc. or it's blamed for those ideas becoming mainstream. It can't really be discussed mainstream, because it is shouted down as a wacky conspiracy theory by media and education institutions, places that should foster debates and the transfer of ideas do not like the subject.

either way, Marxism in general is usually championed by weak people because it is an ideology that will destroy meritocratic society. It's the equivalent of turning people into ants.

Struggle sessions cranked to 11.

The biggest faggotry of all time.

ITs the idea of making the native host culture degenerate in art and morality, then how can the "traditionalist" seek the continuation of conservative culture if its already influenced by degeneracy and anti family values.

Basically a evil and slimy way of destroying native culture by infiltrating and rotting it away, who can defend it then.

No, I mean the Paris Commune was a worker's council and that existed almost 40 years before WW1.

>Dmitri Volkogonov
Yeah, who I would personally not trust to write on Marx at all, I trust what I've read. The only real way to know is to look at Volkogonov's source, but its in Russian so I can't read it. Surely if he's asserting Marx said something then it should possible to trace it back to where Marx's original writings.

>Freikorps were pushing commie shit
Yeah but so what? What's the argument here? That might makes right? Well sure, but then the bolsheviks beat the white army, so... were the bolsheviks right in your mind then since they won?

Equality of outcome across demographic groups in all things, like sporting events, book deals, and college degrees. It’s horseshit opportunism.

every ideology that stems from Marxism should be gassed, aside from the third way which is essentially Marxism weaponized against internationalism in a national context. Essentially Nazis looked at commies and decided to fight fire with fire.

>Could you guys explain cultural marxism to me?
It is basically progressivism