Byron wrote:Boyle wrote:I have seen quite a few right-wingers push that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy by the powers that be as a method to destroy the family and, thereby, keep the populace malleable and easily manipulated. Sometimes they even explain that its the Jews doing it, now using the SJW's to do so, so no, you're wrong. You may not believe that, but you're associated with those that do simply by using the phrase "cultural Marxism" because I only see crazy right-wingers use the word unironically. You know, people like Seth.
It's even got a mention on the Frankfurt School wiki page so I find your claim of it being a strawman conspiracy created by the leftist "useful idiots" to undermine criticism with skepticism. Show your source for this claim. The term itself may have been created back in the 70's, but popular usage of the word today does not refer to scholarly works, it refers to a conspiracy. Ignoring this is the same as ignoring the popular usage of racism or sexism and instead opting for the institutional type. [...]
So your claim's that because the term "cultural Marxism" is presently used by some right-wing cranks, and you were personally ignorant of its other usages (since you've quoted my
counter-example from a mainstream academic of the left, you no longer are: I can produce plenty more if needed, but trust you'll now stipulate to its other uses), no-one else can use it without guilt-by-association?
By this pitiful reasoning, every time you refer to sexism or racism, you're "associated" with the extremists who think that only white people can be racist, and only men can be sexist. Alternatively, useful terms aren't tainted by usage from your opponents.
Presently? It's been used by right wing cranks since at
least 2000. I've only encountered it from right wing cranks. This is the first time I've ever seen it used the way you are, and even then it's basically being used the same way as Lind did, especially since you claim cultural Marxists use a bait-and-switch tactic to hammer their ideas through. Lind claims the same with Marcuse and the 60's and the New Left in that article I linked.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
But yeah, that's how words work. They may get linked to people you don't like. I get heat for claiming to be a feminist because of what fuckwits say. Them's the breaks. Call it pitiful reasoning all you want, but the term is associated with right wing losers. Have fun taking it back.
Byron wrote:You want a useful idiot linked, you've had one already, in the
Guardian piece that, coincidentally, contains the very same allegations you've just wheeled out.
As for the Wiki page, thanks for bringing that up: the demand for a conspiracy theory edit was led by
a self-declared Marxist. A useful idiot, or just an idiot, I'll leave for you to determine.
You're arguing that I should ditch a term that originated with the New Left themselves, and use a less descriptive term for exactly the same thing, 'cause some Tea Party dolts have appropriated it. I decline. They wanna take it, I'll just take it right on back, and school whoever needs schooling.
Why does it matter where the term originated/was used? You calling a black person nigga isn't gonna be looked on well just because black people use it as a general term. You busting out the chest high arm salute doesn't get a pass just because the US once used it. You getting a Chaplin mustache will get you some looks, too, even though Charlie Chaplin had one. Words get associated with shit you don't like and using those words gets you signed on to those idiots in the minds of others. Accept it and deal with it. I have to deal with dumbfuck questions about Solanas in basically every feminist topic I get into, so I don't see how this particular phrase gets a pass because you like it.
I have neither the time nor patience to read all that garbage from WikiInAction or the talk page of a wiki article. What about the page is untrustworthy? I find it strange that you trust the wiki pages for Critical Theory and the New Left but not this one.
But hey, let's look up what the Stormfronters say about
Cultural Marxism. Looks like they aren't using it in the way you are. Seems pretty conspiracy theory to me. Are they just useful leftist idiots? Are they in league with the Guardian? Can you show me the evidence for cultural Marxism being used in the way you're using it in popular settings like internet forums? Because, as I said above, this is the first I've seen for claiming its a nice clean term with no baggage.
by 
An admittedly lame attempt to inject some humor into the discussion.
