by Jimmie Moglia
Many confound what they think with what they know. With Marx, personal notions of Marxism often justify arbitrary conclusions, reflecting the perceiver’s prejudice, fancy or indoctrination. Any related discussion turns then into a vicious circle of arguments searching for proofs, and proofs that are but someone’s opinions.
Furthermore, various currently-popular and alternative media sources, when referring to Marxism, utter remarkable nonsense, misrepresentation and even slander.
All this may be of disturbing obviousness, though it should be stated, given some equally disturbing notions, circulating at large within both the current and counter-current cultural streams.
Far from me to claim expertise or academic Marxian knowledge. One must be in perfect health to read Marx, let alone his complete works. Besides, translating ponderous German sentences into simpler and more manageable English is a challenge even for seasoned translators. Which explains the many words still quoted in German, accompanied by the translator’s apology – that his English translation only approximately renders the meaning of the quoted German original.
But here we are beyond sophisticated and debatable interpretations of the source. A situation has evolved where the current so-called ‘populist’ opposition accuses the neo-liberals of Marxism, actually of bolshevism. While the accused are indifferent to the accusation, for the origins of their philosophy was (and still is) improperly called “cultural Marxism,” as I will attempt to show.
In other words, in this upside-down philosophy and worldview, the 1% are the ‘Bolsheviks’ while the staunch, right-wing anti-socialists are the ‘proletarians.’
To account for this newly hatched paradox, a summary of the notions and facts involved is necessary.
We may start with the often-quoted F. Fukuyama, philosopher and employee of the US State Department, who proclaimed the “end of history.” For, according to this pundit, the first successful “orange revolution” – i.e. the destruction of the Soviet Union – coincided with the final stage of history, and with the entire world turned capitalist and neo-liberal.
The only remaining task was to re-educate the misadvised ex-colonies about the ‘right way.’ Or even more Orwellianly, to wage genocidal wars to achieve capitalistic peace. The West would then establish worldwide ‘pax civilitatis’ (peace of civilization), at least according to the pop-philosophy of Karl Popper.
Even the New York Times said so, in a lead article of Apr 18, 1993 titled, “Finally colonialism is back. It was about time!” Meaning that the “moral mission” of the civilized world is to go and govern “these desperate places” and impose upon them the respect of “human rights.”
The appellation of “desperate place” was and is wide and elastic. It ranges(d) from the island of Grenada, to Panama (1500 plus dead civilians), Iraq (first and second Gulf War), Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan etc.
Soon even Eastern European nations qualified and, of course the Balkans – we all know who is the current colonial master in these East-European crucibles of newly established happiness.
It is as if the US extended the Platt Amendment to the world. The 1901 Platt Amendment guaranteed to the US the right to occupy Cuba militarily anytime when, in the judgment of the exceptional nation, “the quiet enjoyment of property, liberty and human rights were in danger.” Neo-liberalism before its time.
In less Augustan language, the very essence of neo-liberalism is that the triumph of the strongest is also the salvation of the weakest. And that nothing works better than bombs to soften the obdurate, convince the mistaken, and mollify the resentful.
This has been particularly evident in some ex Soviet Republics – Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia but not only – whose now-abandoned young males exported crime, and young females prostitution, into Western Europe. Something never seen, or even imagined, while these nations were subjected to the cruel Soviet yoke. But, as we know, the lure, the promise and the appearances of prosperity have dazzled stronger eyes, and disappointment is ever proportional to hope.
The whole thing almost amounts to superstition, about which it is vain to conjecture; for what reason did not dictate, reason cannot explain.
All this the world well knows, but how could neo-liberal ideology have anything to do with Marx, let alone Bolshevism?
I know not by what fatality or by what confederacy, but it began with “cultural Marxism,” which, in my view is neither Marxist, nor cultural.
Its seeds were planted in the 1930s, when a group of left-leaning academics in Frankfurt, Germany, invented what they called ‘critical theory,’ also known as the Frankfurt School. These luminaries found Marx inadequate to effect meaningful changes in society, and sought ways to correct his shortcomings.
Defining ‘critical theory’ is very difficult except for seasoned academics. But since an honest tale speeds best when plainly told, ‘critical theory’ plainly means turning society upside-down, by relying on the wisdom, gravity and profound conceit of selected academics – veritable captains of erudition and business managers of the mind.
The ‘critical theory’ blossomed in the 1960s among leftist caviar-intellectuals in American and European universities. Today it dominates academia, especially in social studies.
One of the most influential thinkers of this remarkable school was Herbert Marcuse. Even a cursory glimpse at what Marcuse said in print shows how the ‘critical theory’ has inspired and instilled a certain culture of inverted intolerance. A culture that now prevails in the caviar-academic world and, by reflection, osmosis and capillary action, in the world at large, thanks to the fake news media and the fake world of Hollywood.
Here is a quote from Marcuse’s book, “Oppressive Tolerance.”
“The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which granted constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities.”
Social justice, feminism, neo-progressivism, post-colonialism, gender equality, multi-culturalism, and diversity are movements or ideologies inspired or associated with the ‘critical theory.’ And since the critical theorists saw themselves as new and improved Marxists, critical theory equates to cultural Marxism.
Gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture or religion – every aspect of personal identity is in question. Every norm or standard of society should be challenged and ideally altered so as to benefit supposedly oppressed groups.
Historical Marxism opposed the bourgeoisie to the proletarians, in a class struggle aimed at a utopian or at least at a more balanced organization of society. Critical Theory substitutes class struggle with a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, between those with privileges and those without them. If you are wondering why the term ‘working class’ has almost disappeared from what is called, at large, the ‘discourse’, it’s because it has been replaced by ‘minorities.’
Majority groups are typically defined as privileged and oppressive – with minority groups accordingly labeled underprivileged and oppressed.
Heterosexuals, sexual conformists, whites and Christians are oppressive. Those that do not fit into these groups are thus considered oppressed.
Consequently, if heterosexuals are oppressive the solution is to encourage other forms of sexuality. If whites are oppressive the solution is racial diversity, if sexual conformity is oppressive, the solution is to encourage transgender sexuality, if Christians are oppressors, the solution is to propagate Islam, etc.
Another member of the Frankfurt School, Theodore Adorno, wrote a book titled, “The Oppressive Personality.” In it he defines parenthood, pride in one’s family, Christianity, adherence to traditional gender roles, traditional attitudes towards sex, and love of one’s own country as ‘pathological phenomena.’
Branding as pathological opinions and modes of life differing from theirs is a characteristic of the ‘critical theorists.’
Different views are irrational fears or phobias. A person who feels uncomfortable living as a minority in an enclave dominated by Muslim migrants is an islamophobe, since wishing to live among those culturally and ethnically similar to oneself is considered sick or phobic.
But when, for example, Pakistani Muslims in Britain show in-group preference, converting entire sections of a town or city into a mini-Pakistan, there is no sickness or phobia, only multiculturalism. For a prelude of things to come see the short video here https://youtu.be/T_migDDtoXA
Another notably popular and propagandist manifestation of cultural Marxism is political correctness, in which media channel and academia question common language.
Illegal immigrants are to be called undocumented migrants, while ethnic discrimination is described as affirmative action.
Defining and redefining words is a means to control the discourse and alter cultural norms. An ethnic minority woman, for example, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men.
Racism and sexism are a product of prejudice plus power, hence let’s promote a favorable view of groups that are marked as ‘oppressed.’ Therefore Islam is a religion of peace. Black Lives Matter is a peaceful, legitimate protest movement. Feminism is only about equality, etc. No criticism or deviation from this narrative is allowed.
In the end, while communism offered a resolution of class conflict in a utopian social system, cultural Marxism offers a desolate form of eternal warfare between ever more narrowly defined groups of offended minorities.
The only meaningful consequence that the wide application of cultural Marxism can have, is the marginalization of traditional European and Western culture. Which, incidentally, was the prophecy and the plan of Coudeneuve Kalergi, founder of the European Union. (see “A Tale of Two Pictures”) -> http://wp.me/p2e0kb-1Qs
From what we hear, the country where the process is more advanced is Sweden, where legislation is being discussed to make it a punishable ‘hate crime’ to express views unfavorable to the massive, uncontrolled injection of ‘undocumented migrants.’
And so it has come to pass that thanks to Academia, lick-spittle of the ruling class, the alt-right, which is currently the only something that resembles a Left, can call the 1% Bolsheviks, while the ‘Bolsheviks’ laugh ever harder behind the back of mankind, and, naturally, all the way to the bank.
But is cultural Marxism really ‘Marxist?’
The answer, in my view is no. To start, Marx advocated both a political and a humanitarian emancipation. Along with the economic emancipation of the working class, he promoted the removal of class dominion. In his vision, the revolution included not only the working class but the emancipation of nations – in his time he particularly referred to the independence of Ireland and Poland. And though Marx is associated with the notion of religion as ‘the opiate of the people,’ he equally considered religion as an essential ingredient in the formation of the nationalist spirit.
Marx advocated the elimination of slavery, but neither ‘diversity’, ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘gender neutrality.’ He pointed to the class struggle not only as economic. He viewed the capitalist system as an assembly of more-or-less servile relationships imposed by one people on another internationally, by one class on another in one single nation, and by a man on a woman inside members of the same class.
On the latter issue he was not alone. For example, French philosopher and mathematician Nicolas de Condorcet, in 1790, had already defined as an ‘act of tyranny’ the exclusion of women from political rights – and he equally condemned the ‘power of habit,’ which dulls the sentiment of justice.
All these are ideas reflected and expanded in Marx’ writings. In other words, the cultural Marxists’ conversion of resistance to class discrimination into a universal classification of oppressors and oppressed, based uniquely on numbers, is arbitrary and unwarranted.
Caviar-academia has invented the term ‘populist’ to suggest contempt and irrelevance. Nevertheless, however unorganized it may be, it is ironic that the ‘populist’ alt-right is currently the only palpable or detectable opposition to neo-liberalism, war-mongering, turbo-capitalism, casino-banking, multiculturalism, diversity, borders abolition, sexual gender irrelevance and miscegenation – in other words, to the misnamed ‘cultural Marxism.’
Historians, accustomed to extend their views through a long concatenation of causes and effects, may discover the weakness of human schemes and detect the fallacies by which mortals are deluded, including the absurdities of ‘cultural Marxism.’
Whether reason will in the end prevail and recover some influence, in academia and elsewhere, I know not. For whenever I pretended to the prerogative of foresight, I was mortified with a new conviction of the shortness of my views.
This is an awesome (and fun) analysis, and mostly right on the money. Thank you, Mr. Moglia for the clarification regarding the bizarro world of “critical theory.”
I do disagree that alt-right = populism, or vice versa. Alt right has issues I do not wish to be drawn into. I am thinking that Milo was pretty accurate when he said that the counter-culture is now on the right, and I think what he meant by it is not alt-right, of whom he is in part quite critical, but rather what seems to me to be the “dissident right” — not (necessarily) Republican, not racist, not bigoted, not “square” or staid bourgeois, but dissenting from the whole progressivist/loony left paradigm that has infected every nook and cranny of the body politic.
Even “dissenting right” is not quite accurate… “dissenting anti-totalitarians” is what I am thinking of, which category is open to both former right or left. Populists, for short?
I’m OK with Marxism– at least with certain thinkers who take the label– but not with with Marx himself, who spent almost all of his energy denouncing contemporaries like Proudhon. When I think of Marx the person, I think of conceit, and “socialism made safe for bankers.” It is sad that his name is associated with a social movement that is in many ways positive. I tend to think that Marx co-opted Marxism.
Given that Marx the person was a charlatan and scoundrel (I would have preferred to use more colorful language), in a way, it is not surprising that thinkers like Adorno,(another scoundrel) who deviate from Marx (really the ideas that he co-opted) should be known as ‘Marxists.’
Not helpful
I am sorry mate you could not have read, with understanding, any Marx to come to these conclusions. “Socialism made safe for bankers” ?? just does not fit at all.
If you had read Marx’s critique of Proudhon, “The Poverty of Philosophy”, it is a vehicle to make clear the actual economic mechanisms at work. He did this in all his critiques, used a faulted idea to reveal a better one.
If anyone wants to get serious in aligning their mind with historical reality there is in Marx and Engels a long and arduous road of hard study :—: but by God its rewarding.
SEE https://www.marxists.org/ the largest collection of Marxist works in existence on the net (good, bad and indifferent) and Marx and Engels of course.
Nice article Jimmy! Marx was imo one of the greatest economists, but failed to predict human nature -culture. Bakunin had better options-anarchy& liberal socialism without dictatorship of one class against other, but he was not economist. Good examples could be found in pre guerra civil Spain and southern Ukraine.
When you look at tragedy of Kronstadt soldiers rebellion-first sons of Great Revolution you can conclude that marxism simply wasnt fit to defeat modern slavery-capitalism, it was great attemp tho.
Regards from Ljubljana!
Forsooth, the wax of eloquence.
There is a project, Jimmy, of the zero-point-zero-one-percent, if that is your preffered impecunious definition, to pit the mass against itself.
As with Marx to the workers, and Adorno to emos, there is an easily identifiable pattern, don’t you think?
Interesting and very well-versed piece — thank you, Jimmie Moglia.
“In other words, in this upside-down philosophy and worldview, the 1% are the ‘Bolsheviks’ while the staunch, right-wing anti-socialists are the ‘proletarians’. “
Ha ha, well spotted indeed! Shouldn’t surprise anybody, given the prevalence of Western cretinism. Scratch a ‘rugged’ Westerner and marvel at the grovelling little sycophant underneath. Memes such as ‘Bolshevism’, ‘USSA’ and what-have-you simply show that not even the supposedly angriest of the angry will ever commit High Treason by starting to appreciate the West’s most reputable enemies. As you say, these accusations rightly invoke refined amusement along with richly deserved contempt among the accused, not too impressed by folks putting 100% demonstrable faith in the mendacious propaganda they have been brought up with by the very same 1%. A sure sign of voluntary, militant cluelessness.
“But is cultural Marxism really ‘Marxist?’
The answer, in my view is no. To start, Marx advocated both a political and a humanitarian emancipation. Along with the economic emancipation of the working class, he promoted the removal of class dominion. In his vision, the revolution included not only the working class but the emancipation of nations /…/”
While it probably is true that Marx would be (correctly) quite pissed off were he to see today’s Cultural Marxists in their full magnificent glory, it can’t be denied that there is a continuity between Marxism and Cultural Marxism. Marxism is essentially 19th century Eurocentric chauvinism — minus the racist depravities — where the ‘advanced’ Western workers will come to the rescue of all mankind (with a little help from some banker big-wigs, mind you) and, most notably, fuelled by virulent Russophobia. The Russophobic orientation is even more noticeable among Cultural Marxists with their infantile “anti-authoritarian” desires. Western Marxists and Cultural Marxists alike are afraid of Russia and China and the liberation of the Third World that the Sino-Russian alliance makes possible. The Cultural Marxists’ full endorsement of Western imperialism’s switch to open border policies as of late is proof positive that Cultural Marxism essentially amounts to applied neoliberalism; the only flavours added being faggotry and paedophilia.
The continuity only exists in the left-right spectrum of thought and politics in which case what you say about so-called “Cultural Marxism” is part of continuum.
On the other hand, if the standpoint is the relationship of ideas to historical realities then there is no connection.
If the standpoint is pro and anti-corporatist, pro and anti-working people, then old liberalism, radical new liberalism (cultural Marxism) old cooperate conservatives, neo-liberals, traditional right wing are all in the same pro-corporate anti-people side.
The standpoint is important, because as Lenin said everything is connected to everything else, so a case can be made for anything because always there will be some tenuous connection between things.
I’m from Appalachia. My skin is white. I find it funny to constantly be told by college students from middle-class, or upper middle-class suburban areas that I am “privlidged” and that they base this judgement soley on the color of my skin. They seem to come from far more ‘privlidge’ than where I come from.
To me, if you judge a person entirely on the color of their skin, then you are a racist.
I think that it was the French social theorist, Raymond Aron, who once remarked of Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno et al. that in every neo-Marxist there was a neo-Weberian trying to get out. One could go further and postulate that the Frankfurt school’s various theorems consisted of a reconstruction of some aspects of Marxism (alienation for example) but also elements of Freudianism and the social theory of Max Weber. The political economy hardly figures at all, and social class disappears entirely. Indeed Marcuse came to regard the working class, hopelessly compromised and corrupted, as being ‘a conservative force’. Give them their due for courage though, the Frankfurt school was closed down by the Nazis in the early 1930s and its thinkers were forced to flee Germany for safer climes. This somewhat eclectic radicalism of the FS has since unfortunately morphed into post-modernism – a nihilistic and relativist doctrine which is the terminal point of liberalism, with the cult of the Ubermensch and social atomism. This decadent philosophy is captured in Nietzsche’s aphorism: ‘Nothing is true, everything is permitted.’ Although it regards and thinks of itself as being revolutionary, it is in fact thoroughly reactionary/counter-revolutionary.
Lee Francis,
Thank you well said.
The origins of Post-Modernism are darker still. It was a project run initially from the Netherlands to promote semoitics and post-structuralism in the late 1970s — money was involved as a there was a rash of new journals stated and any sort of rubbish was printed in them, but as they were “peer reviewed” these people got Academic jobs. I was a student representative at the time this first happened in Australia.
A young academic had two or three published articles after four or so years, good articles and substantial; suddenly we had applicants with 10 or twenty articles to their credit, all rubbish some unreadable. when the philosophy department went with quality over quantity the University intervened and appointed the dip-stick, and then the trickle became a stream.
It was engineered as intelligence agencies wanted to remove actual radicalism from campuses world wide and the result in the humanities was the same as McCathism in US academy, conformity, stupidity and numbing down. (especially prevalent in the late 1980s-2000) and now so bad as to be unworldy (read some of Oxford and Cambridge new publications in the humanities; I don’t care about the views, but the quality is sometimes appalling)
Post-modernism is like any fundamentalism a fraud.
“We believe that all people are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happines. That governments are instituted among the people to protect and defend these rights.”
Best statement I know of describing what I would call a decent society.
I will gladly join causes and fight for others to have their rights defended. But I will also stand my ground and fight to defend my own rights when others try to make me a second-class citizen.
To see a breathtaking vision of what an American society founded on these Preamble principles would look like, give Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” a good read. This now-forgotten masterpiece was one of the most popular books of the late 19th Century, right behind “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Though dated in certain respects, Bellamy’s vision remains among the most detailed and compelling in all of Utopian literature. And there is no more incisive and passionate indictment of what we now call global neoliberal capitalism.
The author offers a very conventional academic discussion without a realistic view of the historical background.
Marx was one of the stooges of the British oligarchy, whose protection of Marx was guided by the opportunity of using him and his influence as a weapon against Russia. By that time the British elites had already set several different geopolitical projects in motion: The Israel project, zionism, various jewish organizations with the aim to exploit the jews as proxies for the control of the USA. Eventually a new variant of evangelical revival of British design emerged for the same purpose, with an apocalyptic vision to prepare the americans for the acceptance of terrible wars in the understanding that it would preceed the return of the Messiah believing this was a prophesy from the bible. Marx himself and his contemporaries may not have known, but people in Lord Palmerstons entourage, like Edward Bulwer Lytton, had significantly influenced Richard Wagner who was to become Hitlers inspiration and provider of Hitlers priority concerning racial issues. It took a British agent of influence like Houston Chamberlain to later bring Wagners views to a wider audience and Chamberlain was Hitlers greatest living inspirer.
What has this got to do with Marx? Marx and the radicalism he represents was one side if the coin and building fascism was the other. All of it patiently organized by the British elites. And Marx’ world view was built by what happened in this dramatic era and the British wanted to use radicalism to cause division within their geopolitical rivals to weaken them. Not commonsensical reforms where the best of talents within nations could come together in the best interest of the people. The class struggle meant both theoretically and in its realization that this commonsensical aspect could he prevented and many creative individuals would be murdered and put in prison camps.
A similar thing happened in the french revolution: Britains stooges in that case managed to have the french scientific elite murdered. Partly because they had argued in favor of the american revolution but also because it would cripple France.
Anyway, Britain began working the continental peoples against the jews in order to exploit them and maintain Britains special relation to them and therefore counteracting assimilation of the jews. The subsequent jewish emancipation under Bismarck was accompanied by another contribution by the same Bulwer Lytton who had pointed out the path for young Wagner 30 years before. Lytton published On the coming race, and was involved in building cults on that theme. The Thule society had its roots in Lyttons work.
Marx and other contemporaries knew about antijewish currents and also concurred with some of it. Under such conditions the search for radical change were strengthened in addition to the effect of general social unrest. The recruitation of jews as revolutionaries was facilitated. But importantly Britains role was unknown to most. The french still celebrate the Bastille day.
Presumably many Russians and foreign socialists still believe in the grand October revolution as a popular rise against tyranny.
Wagner was a revolutionary and took part actively in the revolutionary period around 1848, but got away unpunished, while some of his collaborators were imprisoned. Wagner had been introduced at a young age into the British-controlled network of organizations known as Young Europe with many national branches in Europe and elsewhere. That huge British impact on the upheavals on the continent is unknown by most socialists who have been taught that people rose up against tyranny and that at most Britain was a bystander speaking words of apparent sympathy. But just like the french revolution it was all about Britains geopolitics and nothing about freedom for the targeted nations.
Marx had a handler for a period who was an associate of Palmerston: David Urquhart who temorarily managed to fool Marx to accuse Palmerston for being a Russian spy.
In good agreement with the British plans Russia became the target not Britain, the Mecca of capitalism. Socialists when asked to explain this apparent paradox seem to believe that there were kind capitalists who would organize their own demise for humanitarian reasons.
Jimmie Moglia’s article is anything but conventional.
The Jewish conspiracy stuff wears a bit thin. How do they do it; where do they meet? It would seem being Jewish gives supernatural powers to coordinate and not only hatch sophisticated plots and then carry them out seamlessly. Do I get such powers if I convert?
Step back a little isn’t this all just tracing threads and having found them discovered the root of all evil. That one group is responsible, if one group did not exist then we would all be living in heaven? Regardless of opinion is that not the logic of this form of explanation?
The world simply does not operate like that; it may seem so, but it is but a shadow on a cave wall, turn around see what likes beyond the entrance. The thing about the real world is that historical reality is organic, sticky, hard to separate and identify. It takes effort to peer into its workings and it is full of anomalies and contingencies — but it can be understood, but not as abstract oppositions. Yes Karl Marx’s grandfather was a Jew, mine was a militant teetotaller — I drink.
No one is saying that Jews are the source of all the world’s problems. But Israel bears direct responsibility for the deaths of 2.5 million Iraqis, and also responsibility that is both shared and less direct, for the deaths of about 0.8 million Syrians, 0.5 million Afghanis, and 0.25 million Libyans.
Israel and Jewish tribalism has shared responsibility for the US wasting 1 trillion dollars a years on the military, when the world could really put those wasted resources to better use.
Some reading material: AThe Zionist Plan for the Middle East, translated and edited by Israel Shahak
Your last sentence sets up a “straw man” argument that being Jewish is an inherited trait, when obviously it’s not. Being a Jew is a choice, not a race. Judaism has known periods of great evangelism and conversion. Yes, you could convert and probably get some of that “Jewish power” for yourself. I heard that some 60,000 Americans a year do convert. I suggest Gilad Atzmon’s book, “The Wandering Who” for clarity on some of this.
As for Jewish power, it’s obviously very real and people lose their careers for offending certain Jews.
There’s also nothing very special about how Jews obtain their power. They network and they orchestrate. It’s like belonging to any club, a form of “us against them”. The only people who think this is truly odd, are the goyim whose thinking has been prematurely cut off. There’s no need for secret cabal meetings because a lot of this flows from a Jewish (tribal) view of the world and of how things work. But if you want to look for a cabal, well, there is the annual Herzliya conference, and the list of attendees is eye-popping.
An occasional glance at Jewish newspapers and magazines will demonstrate that some Jews do pay particular attention to who’s a Jew. It is a sort of club.
The Jewish conspiracy stuff wears a bit thin.
I see nothing concerning a Jewish conspiracy in Peter Grafström’s comment.
Quoting him:
“By that time the British elites had already set several different geopolitical projects in motion: The Israel project, zionism, various jewish organizations with the aim to exploit the jews as proxies…”
As to your sage advice on how the world operates, criminals should be prosecuted. Utopian dreams are your specialty.
Lumpentroll, you are quite right, I have replied to the wrong author, and inserted into the first line a reference from Peter Grafström. As well.
Peter Grafström, I apologise for my mistake, I have accidentally scrolled past the post I was replying to and replied to you instead.
Thank you Lumpentroll, my apologies to all the readers.
Thank you, Greg, for inserting some sanity into this discussion.
And don’t rush into the mikve… I converted and got nada. :-)
You know what really gets me? When certain folk argue that Israel is behind the destruction of Europe. As though it will help Israel to have Europe et al overrun by Islam. Bah.
Correct, the Larouche entourage have provided excellent insight into historical facts distorted and belied by the British, who were indeed behind the bulk of revolutions. But wrong about groups of Larouchians organizing something in the comment sections. It simply is very high quality and too few have found that out. I advice a Marxist like you to beware of being like a religious zealot who doesnt want to know. The British wouldnt have remained so silent about such articles if they could prove it wrong so the best they can hope for is that people dont see it. Their Venetian members carried a millenium of experience to the British oligarchy and some of them like Aubrey Herbert, I think, rightly characterized those British agents from the oligarchy as endowed with an unusual talent for impressing their intended targets. Reaching the hearts and the minds. This enabled them to repeatedly pit peoples against each other without being suspected or critisized. Instead they would even be offered to rule over them. For example, the British promised both the Kurds and Armenians overlapping territory and encouraged each side to fight for their rights. The result was the so called Armenian genocide. Apparently this is known by Armenian researchers but they dont make any noise about it. This was at the time of WWI. But things were equally chaotic during Marx days. The British stooge Mazzini was behind most of the revolutions using the many branches of his organization(s) Young Europe. But the previous comment brought up a very complex issue regarding the British plot against the jews but unknown by them. Instead it appeared that several independent antisemitic currents were in motion. There is no doubt that this would influence the perception of the jews to make them more tempted to join both zionism and other forms of radicalism. But who was really behind the protocols, (the first know version of which was dated 1858)? Who had the strongest motive? No doubt the British who had already decided to create a bufferstate in Palestine and who created the now still active jewish organizations aimed at the US. But it was also about preventing good relations between the jews and the continental nations. The British wanted the jews to be their proxy while german-jewish bankers were assisting Germany’s unification by financing Bismarck. It makes sense to bring this up since the jews played a significant role in everything related to communism. Marx himself and later many zionists became antisemites. The zionists came to despice themselves for not having a country. Marx for the role played by jews in finance. The psychological setting appears to match Marx often destructive instincts along with many other revolutionaries.
The Chinese were not forced into communism by the British but fooled into it. Bertrand Russel and John Dewey were deep state ops and worked to avoid to see capitalism develop in China.
The Chinese like many others didnt comprehend the deviousness of Britains elite socialists. But the anglophiles in the USG made sure Mao would win. All the post WW2 wars were meant to be lost in order to bolster the MIC. Including aiding Fidel Castro to take over Cuba according to several reliable sources. Robert McNamara stated it openly about the Vietnam war.
Interesting stuff, but it’s a torrent of assertions piled on top of more assertions. Could you please provide us with some sources, especially on the more fundamental claims ? In sum, these amount to extraordinary claims and therefore it requires serious documentation to be taken seriously.
What evidence can you provide ?
I think you are asking me Cosimo. But your question is unspecific.
One article from 1978 about how Britain created zionism is important since this is unknown to most anglosaxons who believe it was mainly about blackmailing Britain for bringing in the americans in WWI.
http://www.campaigner-unbound.0catch.com/how_britains_biggest_racists_created_zionism.htm
Likewise the americans complain about the jewish organizations which they believe control the US but dont want to hear about Britains role in creating them.
http://www.campaigner-unbound.0catch.com/bnai_brith_british_weapon_against_america.htm
About Britain plotting revolutions all over Europe and more.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/lord-palmerstons-multicultural-human-zoo/
Quote to suit the incredulous: “How do the British do it? How can a clique of depraved aristocrats on this tight little island bid to rule the entire world? ”
The mentioned sources introduce little known facts which one needs to be accustomed with because official history totally belies it. Once you realize that this was the background in which Marx operated and was protected by these masters of deception and not some kind of dupes for a sly revolutionary, you will have to ask yourself how the British would ever allow Marx to have the best opportunities for his research with them without them getting something important in return. In the capitalist lions den!
Joachim Köhler’s Wagner’s Hitler doesnt accuse the British elites of plotting anything but, in passing, tells the facts about how some brittons influenced Germany during and after Wagner. Mostly he focuses on the germans. After having read Tarpley’s article above you would better appreciate in what kind of background Wagner’s views developed.
For me, willing to accuse the British however Köhlers overview provides the needed evidence to fill in the dotted lines. The British stimulated antijewish currents in Germany over several generations.
Manuel Sarkisyanz’ How Hitler’s India was to be Russia
Both these sources expose the wideranging influence Britain exerted on nazism.
Since they also stimulated communism they created an opposing pair.
So even though you may see it as a digression to bring up zionism and nazism I believe it makes sense to broaden the perspective. Otherwise Marxism would seem to be just a response to the social consequences of universal greed. Not specifically pointing to Britain.
Britains successful coverup of her true role holds the honest truthseeker in the dark.
About how Maoism was stimulated by Britain
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n36-19920911/eirv19n36-19920911_048-the_british_role_in_the_creation.pdf
About Cuba and how the state department the NYT and Cia aided Castro to win. Earl E T Smith ambassador to Cuba: The Fourth Floor 1962
The previous US ambassador to Cuba and the US ambassador to Mexico concurred
Some of Smiths witness acounts are here from a US senate hearing
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/gardner-smith.htm
But I think it was in the book where he added that the Cia directly brought weapons to the rebels.
“French” revolution
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2001/eirv28n04-20010126/eirv28n04-20010126_046-jean_sylvain_bailly_the_french_r.pdf
The commentator asked for serious sources, such as reliable primary sources (governmental, legal or bank documents), secured by people who have learned the craft of solid historical critical analysis (thus can scrutinize paper quality, handwriting, apply safe linguistic analysis of authors of the centuries concerned), has learned to provide the necessary amount of representative data and can interpret them on the base of sociologically reliable methods or good secondary sources, published by authors who have done all that and can rely on an institute with adequate access to sources with an adequate staff.
This commentator was certainly not interested in the secterian world-view of the Larouche cult, who need a conspirational view for being able to cement their reduced cosmos to a simple black-and-white view. Last time you managed to focus on the ficticious narrative of two hobby historians.
That the primitivity of your argumentation tells the reader that you have neither read Marx nor Lenin, let alone understood them, is an experience you and your fellow companions have made quite often, as nerved readers have told you several times before.
Sectarian believers, like members of other black cults, are notorius for their need of permanent repetition of their believes, wile they never achieve to provide solid evidence.
Best greetings to your pals of the so-called “Scientology Church”. There is no difference between these people and them.
Mr Grafström, you will have no chance here and at other places to stir anything but contempt.
Marx was a scion of wealthy bankers and industrialists. The mainstream history on the man is complete bunk. His job was to destroy real workers movements from within and to disrupt traditional societies.
For example, Aristotle identified the concept of private property as essential to being human. Marx comes along and suggests the elimination of that concept — now why would that be? It is no coincidence that Marx is hailed as a founding father of Sociology, that academic discipline devoted to the destruction of society.
Now we have new waves of marxists suggesting the abolition of gender; just like Marxists always seek the elimination of religion. Same old agenda — constant cultural revolution to ultimately serve the banksters (see my point about Marx’s true origins).
He was a project.
Final note — the neoconservatives in the US are all ex-Trotsykites. The goal with these guys is always to disrupt and destroy.
Et voila!
” ****** identity politics is a model for identity politics in general. In the west, we have witnessed the evolution of gay ID politics, black ID politics and so on. ID politics operates to teach people to speak and think ‘as a’; ‘as a black’, ‘as a lesbian’, ‘as a feminist’, ‘as a Muslim’, etc. It is an attempt to break apart all the established and traditional social structures. ”
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/7/30/palestine-syria-id-politics-and-the-west
“Marx was a scion of wealthy bankers and industrialists.” No he was not, his father was a convert, his grandfather a Rabbi, his family was comfortably middle class.
Engles was the son of industrialist. Both we extremely well educated, Marx intense, Engels a ‘jack of all trades’ and they were part of rising awareness of their period which was systematically suppressed as a movement and as ideas.
I do not think you will find Marx doing the job to “destroy real workers movements from within and to disrupt traditional societies.” History did that, Marx wrote a lot, gave lectures and help organise the first workers political parties.
Marx did not destroy private property he found within it a seed for its own dissolution. Look what has happened by private property — in the West it has appropriated itself (into corporate capital) and disappeared. I don’t think you can blame him for being right.
Marxist tend not to wail against reality so “suggesting the abolition of gender” is not really a sign of being a Marxist.
“Final note — the neoconservatives in the US are all ex-Trotsykites. The goal with these guys is always to disrupt and destroy.”
This is pretty well true, but Trotsky with many things to his credit was a terrible political analysts and theorist. Orwell got it right in 1984, when he showed that Emmanuel Goldstein and ‘Big Brother’ were factions in the same side. Also in Animal Farm he showed managerial (pigs) using liberal arguments to suppress the rest.
Stalin and Trotsky had the same economic polices (I think Trotsky would have been gentler and moire effective) it was to turn Russia into one big corporate entity. Lenin on the other hand argued for NEP before, during and after the Revolution. I think you would find NEP closer to Liberationists on their better days. I would argue NEP type solutions are inherent in Marx’s view (see “the Critique of the Gotha Program”
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/]
Stalin and Trotsky, the apparatchiks expressed was the managerial class that now dominate the West. The class of overseers have taken over the big house. Managers do not have principles as their name implies, they manage, changing sides creating divisions from left to right.
“The Man in the Glass Booth” by Robert Shaw captures this beautifully.
Things are not as simple as you seem to believe, the baddies don’t wear black hats anymore,
@Greg,
I do not think that I would agree with you regarding Trotski being gentler than Staling. Trotski and his tcheka were known for extreme brutality, and when Trotski was found to be to extreme he was smuggled out to USofA.
Stalin had his henchmen to do the dirty work, yet he also was accused of disposing of thousands if not millions of inconvenient people.
@Others
I always considered Marx as a promoter of Christian rules less the God.
As for other things I would say things definitely started to change in the 70’s, but I think that color movement started earlier with Rosa Luxemberg being at the forefront of feminism and promotion of women wearing pants, etc.
Greg
Trotsky wanted the Soviet union to be farmland and import technology, a sure sign of a traitor in collusion with the imperialists who brought communism both to the USSR and China explicitly stating that they did not want capitalist competion.
Tsarrussia needed 20 years of peace according to Stolypin.
All the commonsensical reformers in China Russia and France were subverted by the British.
I agree that Marx may not have openly acted to destroy genuine worker movements, but the support he got from the elites made it possible to kidnap those movements. There is a competition for peoples ears. Those with more resources win. Mussolini initially was a poor socialist but observed how there were seemingly professional revolutionaries with abundant resources and wondered why. The angloamericans financed it. Records from Grande Orient captured from the nazis by the red army and studied later by Oleg Platonov confirmed that 50 million dollars to the bolsheviks came from four western countries. Back to the 1800s, Marx was given such good working conditions by the British that he had reason to be very satisfied as an academic.
The fact that he wasnt thrown into a dark dungeon or murdered ought to make you suspicious.
Or are you among those who believe that the British oligarchy was characterized by humanitarian ideals and would passively watch someone plotting for their demise?
Because a relatively insignificant german like Engels was supposed to fund him, the British wouldnt dare to counteract them?
Thank you Jimmie for your attempt to give a more balanced and more complete evaluation of the contribution by Marx and his followers to history.
Whilst I think Marxism is a somewhat flawed methodology, the Marxist-led Russian October Revolution of 1917 helped end the slaughter of the First World War. The October Revolution also gave humanity its best ever chance of preventing the next global war of 1939-1945, in which an estimated 60 million died.
Sadly the October Revolution failed to spread, most notably in Germany, as described in “The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918-23” (1997) by Chris Harman. The triumph of communism in Germany would have prevented Hitler’s conquest of Germany in 1933 and the Second World War.
Yes, so-called “Cultural Marxism” has nothing to do with Marx. It is just the latest variety of pushy Western liberalism and was totally created in the West. It does not have any origins in the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China.
RELIGION is always such a confusing topic, especially now when mercenary armies devastate the Middle East and Africa under the banner of sectarianism.
1850 Engels writes a small booklet “The Peasant War in Germany” on the conflict that arouse after Luther and showed for the first time that these religious wars were not in fact about religion, that religion was used to express social antagonisms that were beginning to break out across Europe. It is not ponderous or hard to read.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, Marx on religion takes more than few readings to get to what he is saying -here is just two paragraphs:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
From “The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” (1843)
No better study of modern political struggle and its oddities exists than in Marx’s 1852 “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”
There is so much more, find some time to get your feet wet if you have not already.
References:
See https://www.marxists.org
The Peasant War in Germany:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/
The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm
It’s interesting to note that libertarians (like myself), the most laissez-faire and pro-capitalist of all groups, often practice Marxist-style class analysis. Politics really is all about economics. This Cultural Marxist nonsense is really a gigantic misdirection.
Have you read Paul Gottfried’s “The Strange Death of European Marxism”? He argues that cultural Marxism is not Marxism, and that American leftism is not either, but rather a species of political pietism more Protestant than Bolshevik or Marcusian.
What does “left leaning” mean?
What difference does it make if a person leans to one side or the other?
“Its seeds were planted in the 1930s, when a group of left-leaning academics in Frankfurt, Germany, invented what they called ‘critical theory,’ also known as the Frankfurt School.’
Marx was a self proclaimed Satanist he even received the silver dagger.
Here one his first satanic poems (before being a Satanist he wrote glowing poems as a christian.)
He writes in a poem, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”~ So
he was convinced that there is One above who rules, but was quarrelling with Him.
Yet, the One above had done him no wrong. Marx belonged to a relatively well-to-do
family. He had not faced hunger in his childhood. He was much better off than many
fellow students. What produced such a terrible hatred for God? No personal motive is
known. Was Karl Marx in this declaration only someone else’s mouthpiece? We don’t
know.
At an age when most young men have beautiful dreams of doing good to others and
preparing a career for themselves, the young Marx wrote the following lines in his
poem “Invocation of One in Despair”:
So a god has snatched from me my all,
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall.
Nothing but revenge is left to me.
I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark – superstitious dread.
For its marshal – blackest agony.
Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
Shall turn back, deathly pale and dumb,
Clutched by blind and chill mortality,
May his happiness prepare its tomb
There is a pdf by Richard Wurmbrand, but one can download Marx’s poem freely whatsoever see for one self of course.
Marx – the perfect tool to sow chaos and despair. His analysis of capitalism is nonetheless a good work and worth reading, though the writing style is difficult to understand.
HDan
A search for the name Richard Wurmbrand turned up that he’s a person of dubious credibility.
Since I’ve listened to several Evangelical US preachers I’m rather skeptical if their sermon shall help people find the right was. Being preacher can a be a multi-million dollar business. Many of them heavily rant against every political system that even remotely attempts to distribute wealth in a more just way. Dividing profits is bad for business. That’s why everyone who speaks out against unrestricted capitalism must be silenced. Maybe several of the preachers forgot the word of their boss who once said: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
correction:
… find the right was.
should be:
… find the right way.
Thanks so much, Jimmie, for this very thoughtful article.
Indeed, the Internet is full of overheated opinions about Marx, from people who clearly don’t have the patience to read and analyze his writings in the first place. And so we should not be surprised when they confuse Marx with Marxism, or with Bolshevism, or with critical theory, and or with more recent discourses on gender and ethnicity — all of which are quite separate from Marx’s original concerns.
Somehow, Marx is today often discussed as first and foremost an agitator for communism, when in fact the largest project of his life was a (unfinished) theory of capitalism.
Similarly, we now routinely find attacks on the Frankfurt School popping up on the Internet, by people who are convinced that Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Fromm, et al are somehow the root cause of “cultural Marxism”, which today somehow means welfare, trans-gender bathrooms, identity politics, and Black Lives Matter. Again, needless to say, anybody who has actually read the Frankfurt School writers can tell you they were not really concerned with either gender or race. Rather, they were more focused on post-Kantian philosophy, social theory, ideology critique, psychoanalysis, and what happens to culture (literature, art, music, in a pretty traditional sense) under capitalism and fascism. For the genuinely curious, a good place to start would be Max Horkheimer’s essay “Traditional and Critical Theory”, though you must be prepared for dry reading.
For these reasons, I wholeheartedly agree with Jimmie’s argument. One take-away for me is that it makes sense to really distance ourselves from “the misnamed ‘cultural Marxism’ “, which is a poor label for a very different set of ideas that don’t really do justice to Marx or Marxism.
“But is cultural Marxism really ‘Marxist?”
Yes. Why? Because Marxism is a Jewish hoax. And cultural Marxism its logical, treacherous continuation. Marx himself was Jewish, a wealthy aristocratic blood-liner, and an Zio-Intel asset.
http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/jenny.pdf
Marx was linked by family to industrialists and bankers but that FACT whizzes over people’s heads and they still push Marx.
Marx was, is and always will be a fraud. There should be nothing to debate by now but apparently the propaganda is deep and ingrained in most of us. Marx is linked to wealth through both his own family (they use the “semi-literate mother” canard to disguise that fact) and his wife’s .
Marx’s mother was a Pressburg (a family of wealthy merchants) and her sister married into the Philips family. A cousin also married into the Rothschilds! The fact that Marx married into the Prussian aristocracy should also raise eyebrows. I’d love to have seen that introduction ;) Marx was always connected, and remained so throughout his “impoverished” life.
Uncle Benjamin Philips, a wealthy banker and industrialist, helped out Marx in London. Is Uncle Ben just a generous idiot? Any mainstream history written on this guy has to be regarded with scepticism otherwise we will have another dumba** generation spouting Marxian claptrap.
I am for a fairer society (e.g. we need government controlled Central Banks issuing debt free money and a cancellation of the fraudulent debts imposed upon us by the international banksters) but you’re not going to get that by advocating the abolition of private property. That’s the route to totalitarianism. Even a dog with a bone will argue his right to his own stuff ;)
@Flonerd, your words give me some inspiration :
Even a dog with a bone will argue his right to his own stuff,
-This my bone, my property, and I’m not telling a bluff !
Just try to take it and and you’ll get a taste of my bite,
Then you’ll not try again, ever, in your Marxist life !
But this can get complicated if your property claim threatens my own perceived right to survival. Suppose I am homeless and at risk of dying of exposure. I try to seek shelter in unused property that does not belong to me. Is the owner allowed to use or sanction the use of force to remove me?
The usual response would be that I have already “initiated force” against the owner by violating his property rights. Of course I could then disagree with this assertion and would not accept that property that is not necessary for the survival of the owner is synonymous with his life. This then leads into many thorny issues about the nature of property rights.
The answer to your question is socialism + own property. In my past experience of socialism, there were no homeless people at all.
Flonerd:
Marx was linked by family to industrialists and bankers but that FACT whizzes over people’s heads and they still push Marx.
Huh, … guilt by association?
I’m not too familiar with the history of slaves in the US, but I’m pretty sure that – at least some – children of slave owners realized that this system was wrong.
This is a deeply thought out article, I am reaching for understanding of this gifted writer. Here in the cultural wasteland of Canukistan adjacent to the US sewer nation we seldom get a glimpse of philosophical hermeneutics. Thank you
It’s weird that the author never mentions Jews. Karl Marx was just an intellectual front man for Moses Hess, the first modern Zionist whom Marx called “My Communist Rabbi”. Marx got his entire schtick from this rabbi. Also, obviously, “cultural Marxism”, ‘critical theory” and “Frankfurt School” are all entirely Jewish institutions. Basically, “Maxism” in its economic and social forms was created by Jews to transfer all the wealth and nations of the goyim into the hands of the Jews. The author is right that the Alt RIght is the only thing resembling the traditional, old- and even new-left. The Alt Right is the *only* counter-culture in the West today because the Alt Right is the *only* dangerous, anti-establishment movement in existence. The entire Left is now firmly “the Establishment” and everyone knows it.
About Marxism again, the reason classical Marxism imploded at the end of the 19th Century was two fold: the national unifications of Italy and Germany and the collapse of continental pacifism before World War 1. Italy and Germany were the greatest strongholds of Marxism at the time and the theory predicted that the Proles of both those countries would unite to stop unification (i.e., class unification) in/of those nations. The collapse of pacifism also disproved Marxism which predicted that the world Proles would unite to stop their leaders from making wars.
So, in the early 20th Century, the Marxist derivations were faced with a crisis and forced to substitute racial/identity politics for failed class politics in the West. It took about 60 years for the change to really cement itself via the Frankfurt School, “critical theory”, hippies, and leftist degeneracy in general in the 1960s.
The Deep State ‘invites’ previously ‘oppressed groups to ‘participate’ only when it is sure these groups operate as a ‘bloc’ that can be trivially co-opted to gain the support in directions the Deep State desires.
To explain with an example. Massive muslim migration into the UK doesn’t lead to political diversity but the very opposite. The muslims mostly vote the way their establishment linked leaders tell them- so an individual muslim vote isn’t a thing. Instead muslim votes are ‘bought’ (and in the UK frequently faked by widespread electorial fraud in muslim regions considered so ‘primitive’ that the British people are told ‘fraud just goes with the territory’). Likewsie the votes of women are largely influenced by ‘showbiz’ propaganda tactics on the media- a women is far more likely to ask “who should I be voting for” than a man.
Conformity and ethnic/minority bloc voting patterns are a terrible problem for modern ‘democracy’. Look at how the sheeple of the USA had zero issue with 99% of Congress bloc voting for the sanctions. American sheeple no longer think political debate is a thing- and this would never have happenbed when only men had the vote.
When two men are having a heated political debate in the family, it is always a woman who acts as if this is the end of the world. As women gain ‘power’ most men learn to keep their mouths shut- and societal debate lessens amongst ordinary people- until debate in and of itself is actually seen as ***abusive***. Consensus at all costs (ie giving in to the will of the Deep State) is what womenfolk demand in normal life.
Did you know the official ‘slave breaking’ guide used by American planation owners used exactly the same method. The biggest, most powerful, ‘alpha’ slave was slowly tortured to death by the master in front of the women slaves. The women were then instructed to raise their male children in ways that would best avoid this fate for their grown children. And the psychology was perfect- with the slave women breaking the will of the slave men from birth.
The reluctance to give women the vote across the planet was based on an awareness of this psychological problem. The female vote becoming a ‘bloc’ easily won over by ruthless evil male politicians.
Political Correctness really means closing down scientific debate based on statistics. And I don’t mean racist garbage suggesting ‘blacks’ are less intelligent than ‘whites’. No, I mean how certain supressed or disadvantaged or whatever groups may accidently end up acting or thinking as a easily co-opted bloc. And how this fact can be exploited by ruthlessly evil people.
It wasn’t the female slave’s fault that her nature made her ideal for ‘taming’ and ‘pacifying’ male slaves- but it was true nevertheless. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable.
We know the early Russia view of Communism/Socialism was fatally contaminated by judaic extremists who thought the Russian sheeple would be easily manipulated to their advantage.
Even Orwell, in his book 1984, makes it clear than ‘enlightened’ socialists like himself saw the ‘best’ option for ordianry people as ‘benevolent slavery’ (the police state in 1984 doesn’t even bother to control the ‘working classes’ cos snobby Orwell thought such people didn’t really matter). Very few ‘thinkers’ wanted to consider a ‘bottom up’ socialism for fear of ending the ‘caste’ system of Europe.
We forget this- for the ‘caste’ system (or ‘class’ system) is long since obsolete for the vast majority- educated or not- rich or poor- in the West. But I will not forgive any of the thinkers of the past for accepting the existence of a ‘slave’ caste. Yet up until the 1970s, most of them did- left, right or whatever.
Socialism is a fair and decent society for everyone. Not the class ‘apartheid’ system people like Marx and Orwell believed in. But when we have a ‘flat’ society like now, new evils arise like the perfection of the police state, and the zionist control of the entire mainstream media, and 99 percent of the indy media as well.
Eternal vigilance and constant free debate are the lifeblood of decent society. Political correctness is designed to close down both- and allow a new class of Deep State masters to take absolute control to a degree no early king could ever have imagined.
“As women gain ‘power’ most men learn to keep their mouths shut- and societal debate lessens amongst ordinary people- until debate in and of itself is actually seen as ***abusive***. Consensus at all costs is what womenfolk demand in normal life.”
Oh really. Not this womanfolk. Not in the world I live in. Sir.
Men and women need to be in synch. This kind of nonsense keeps us forever divided.
Marx’s thinking was against any kind of oppression – economic, cultural, sexual, or any other variety one can think of. (Whether he actually practised as he preached is irrelevant). It is arguable however that he saw economic oppression as the basis of all other oppressions, and so the one to be dealt with first. “Cultural Marxism” is therefore a natural extension of Marx’s thought. Kicking against this is just the expression of the conflict between Marxism and right-wing nationalism in the authors mind – he must choose for himself between them – they are not compatible.
As for some of the comments below, they range from demented anti-jewish* conspiracy theories to right-wing ignorance – some editorial deletions should be made.
* Anti-zionism however is an acceptable stance.
Marxism and Communism are inherently oppressive ideologies as you yourself prove by advocating for the *OPPRESSION* commenters via suppression of comments you disagree with.
It’s amazing how some folks just don’t get free speech, ey, Ez? :-) Good catch.
Marx gave talks on his favorite thing, free trade.