Marx Part 3: Cultural Marxism & Political Correctness | Philosophy Tube

Marx Part 3: Cultural Marxism & Political Correctness | Philosophy Tube


March is my month of Marx! In Part 1 we looked at Labour and Class conflict, in Part 2 we looked at Capitalism’s Consequences. Today
we’re looking at the term ‘Cultural Marxism,’ and if you’re watching this video, it might
be because you’ve just used that phrase and someone has linked you to me. So let’s break down and explore this commonly-used term. Let’s start with the Marxism bit. Marxism
refers, funnily enough, to the systems and work of Karl Marx. But Karl Marx wrote a lot of stuff, and lots of people could be called Marxists who believe or teach very different things. Some people we might call Marxists because they believe in the Labour Theory of Value, which is a controversial theory about how
things come to acquire value in an economy. Some people we might call Marxists because they believe in historical materialism, which is the idea that history follows a particular course determined by the people’s relations to the means of production in their society. Some Marxists are interested in what he had
to say about machines and automation, some people are called Marxists because they like to analyse societies as being made up of groups called classes – the point is, the word ‘Marxist’ is a lot like the word ‘fish.’ Fish move through the water; Marxists move through the ocean of work that Karl Marx left behind, but there are lots of different kinds of fish that live at different depths
and exhibit very different behaviours. Some people are also post-Marxists: they say that some stuff Marx got right and some stuff he got wrong, so we need to sift the good from the bad. More on that next time. So Marxism is a very broad class of theoretical
commitments and methods, some of which this series explains. We should distinguish it
from Leninism and Stalinism. Leninism was developed on top of Marxism by Russian revolutionary
Vladimir Lenin, and it’s the idea that rather than wait around for history to take the course
Marx thought it would, a small group of revolutionaries called a Vanguard should take power and enforce that historical change. Stalinism refers to… whatever Joseph Stalin
was doing that day, basically, which tended to be rather unpredictable except for its
being very nasty. It’s the means of governance that Stalin used, typified by state violence, rapid
industrialisation, a cult of personality, terror, socialism in one country, and the
meticulous planning of how the economy should run, as well as the brutal enforcement of
that plan, which as you may know, resulted in millions of deaths. Rather confusingly,
Stalin referred to Leninism as Marxism-Leninism, to try and make it seem like Lenin’s interpretation
of Marx was the only correct one. Now let’s look at the ‘Cultural’ bit. This
is a modifier attached to the word Marxism, which seems to make it even more vague
than the word ‘Marxism’ already is. A variant of the term, ‘Cultural Bolshevism,’ was used in Nazi Germany to denounce… well seemingly unconnected groups of people: artists,
musicians, anybody who was a bit more liberal than the Nazis, bascially. Cultural Marxism is associated with a group of academics who fled Germany during Hitler’s rise to power for the USA, and who came to be known as the Frankfurt School. It included people like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They were living through a time of great social upheaval, so like Marx, they were interested in how social change happens, and they drew on his work as well as the work of a number of other famous thinkers. The Frankfurt school came to be seen as the centre of a secret plot to secretly spread ‘Marxist ideas,’ which came to be an even more vague term than it already is, through America in an attempt to destroy it. The idea was that, rather than establish a revolution, these Marxist academics and their allies were secretly undermining American value from within, particularly in universities. How this idea of the secret plot arose is really fascinatingly odd. In 1992 an essay appeared in Fidelio, written by one Michael Minnicino. Minnicino’s essay,
which you can find a link to below, talks about a supposed link between the Frankfurt School and 60s counterculture, as well as Operation MKUltra, which was an illegal CIA attempt to develop mind control – which it turns out was real, look it up – which Minnicino thinks helped
popularise LSD, leading to a resurgence in the Frankfurt School’s popularity, because anybody who took the Frankfurt school seriously has to be on drugs, right? Later in the 90s an American right-wing thinker called William Lind tied Marxism to political correctness. In several speeches to the right-wing think tank Accuracy in Academia, Lind said that both Marxism and political correctness
were “totalitarian ideologies,” infecting everything from universities to the media
to even some of the clergy. He took what he saw as an encroaching sinister force from
the left – feminism, sexual liberation, challenges to religion, affirmative action, conversations
about systemic racism, even environmentalism, not all of which have that much to do with
Marx – put them all under the umbrella term ‘Cultural Marxism,’ and tied it all back to the Frankfurt School,
many of whom, he chooses to point out, were Jewish. Also tied up in this was Paul Weyrich, who
helped found several influential conservative think tanks including the Heritage Foundation;
the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC; and the very famous Moral Majority,
which had as its head the late Reverend Jerry Falwell. All of these groups have shaped and in ALEC’s case continue to shape American politics, and Weyrich, like Lind, made this ‘political correctness=secret evil Marxist plot’ leap. So the use of ‘Cultural Marxism’ as a kindof catchall term for left-wing political ideas with sinister conspiratorial possibly Jewish origins, has a rich and interesting history. Nowadays, variants of the idea are used by all sorts of people, including Pat Buchanan, the white nationalist groups Council of Conservative
Citizens and League of the South, Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik, anti-feminists, – on
Twitter I’ve seen it used by Trump supporters, white supremacists, Gamergate supporters, anti-immigration people, anti-government types – like Marxism proper, Cultural Marxism it seems can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Adding ‘Cultural’ to Marxism makes the resulting term vague but obviously negative. We should also note that using ‘Cultural Marxist’ as a slur is obviously not engaging with any of the ideas behind Marx’s work, or engaging with any of the ideas behind political correctness, if you use it as a synonym for that. Calling somebody a Cultural Marxist seems a little bit like booing them, it’s obviously disapproving but it doesn’t really offer any critique beyond that if it’s just used on its own. That’s has been Part 3. We’ve learned about the history and use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism.’ In Part
4, we’ll finish our studies of Marx by going Beyond Capitalism. This episode was sponsored by my Patrons on Patreon: Jesse Austin, D.J. MacIsaac, Michael Hill, Lydia and Nate Thorn,
Alan Falloon, Jeffrey Peckham, Emiliano Heyns, and Horatio Cordero. So thank you to everybody who donated, all your names are in the description, and if you’d like to join them you can earn rewards by sponsoring the show!

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

100 thoughts on “Marx Part 3: Cultural Marxism & Political Correctness | Philosophy Tube

  1. I'm not on the right, more so to the left but considering the left's behaviour over the last couple of years I'm more or less apolitical. However, I have been doing a liberal arts degree for two years now and every single article/paper/any form of information is completely saturated in marxist/postmodern thought. And, it is not even that intelligent or interesting (most of it is a cliche). Now I'm confused because I find the alt right racist stuff disgusting but I find that the right generally denounces that stuff. However, the cultural marxism critique from the right is quite valid in my view. The university has a unsophisticated and clear bias and disdain for western culture/Christianity. After two years of being heavily inundated with every leftist view you could have imagined the narratives of the left are very very questionable – not that some stupid alt right narrative is more true although in some cases (Not the racist cases) they are. Now like I said I'm confused because I find the far right so utterly distasteful and yet I find the left to be quite frankly intellectually weak. You get taught nothing about the Western cannon, and it is outright degraded from a cliche/bohemian view which is really pathetic. Christianity in all its complexity is merely regarded as a corrupt patriarchal institution (lol wtf – where do they think human rights comes from or even present day 'secular' values – not ignoring the past evils done through the church). But, Where does one draw the line? Because I've taken the time to read from all different angles and conservatives make very valid points, as do the left. However, there seems to be a visceral disdain for western culture that always follows and underpins the left – I hang out with people who are generally quite leftist in their views and there isn't a modern art show that I usually attend most Fridays that doesn't showcase a renaissance painting of Mary smeared in period blood (or some variant of that) – and everyone's cool with it. However, if islamic or Buddhist art were degraded I can assure you that there would be serious issues. I've said it before if the marxist/left wing utopia does arrive it could well be the abyss because their constantly on the attack – their deconstructionists if you consider postmeornism/marixsm to be their foundational philosophies. So at uni we never read Shakespeare, the bible, homer, Nietzsche anymore or at least not to the same degree (pre 1969) – but we read marx focault and really far left literature allllll the time plus lots of feminism – which is fine if I had to read it for one week because it isn't that bloody interesting – not like Shakespeare or dostoevsky- that's where you learn about your culture – Not bloody marx. So it must be to a degree at least that we lack a lot of wisdom, knowledge and tradition (perhaps even a conservative view point) within the leftist think tank or at least its general community or the whole community for that matter. I just feel that the left has a very important political role and presence. However, a lot of people my age are always defending the left when they go to far. Like trivialising peoples concerns about free speech. So free speech is of paramount importance and has a deep history in the ideas of the Greeks and hyper developed within Christianity – ie the logos (spoken truth – function of the soul blah blah blah I'm being irreverent but its a very very deep and profound idea). See my point – we have childish debates about free speech that aren't as sophisticated if were truly in touch with the history of the west and our culture and but instead marxist/postmodern thought always seems to dominate – WHY? I get the impression that that tacky ziegiest film is the barometer from which we judge the world these days. It's not that sophisticated. However, I'm not that smart so I will concede that I am probably wrong lol but am becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the left.

  2. The idea that elites in a capitalist country would want to indoctrinate people into becoming marxist is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

  3. I could be wrong here, but:

    Is Cultural Marxism the idea of taking the "oppressor/oppressed" idea, which is central enough to Marxism and just applying it to all sorts of stuff?

    As far as I understand, Marx thought of "oppressor/oppressed" in terms of economics, more than gender pronouns. But you can see how people could force a kind of connection there. And then you have Marx's resulting view of history.

    Isn't that what Foucault et al did? Think of women, gays, etc as viciously oppressed in a similar way to how Marx saw the working class?

    Am I way off here??

  4. I generally hate the left and regard most of Marxism as pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo. I think democratic socialism is an admixture of bits and pieces of liberalism, conservatism and also bits and pieces of this and that – not least Aristotelianism. This would be clearer had Marx not confused matters with his toxic message. Most of the left is a triumph of religious aching over reason.
    So, please believe me when I say I am very sceptical about so-called cultural Marxism. Just like neo-liberalism, the term has little sense and mostly exists because people are convinced it exists.
    Also the Frankfurt School have a very tenuous relationship to Marxism. Much of the FS is non-Marxist. Convinced that Marxism was too crude for ontological explanations, German thinkers raided the likes of Nietzsche and his imitator Sigmund Freud for bits and pieces to decorate some 'radical' temple of something or otherness.
    The most striking thing, for me, about the FS and its successors, is how they reject all of Adam Smith's and David Ricardo's influence on Marx. This seems to be, for them, the seat of Marx's crudity. If you read the 1st part of The Communist Manifesto you can get a sense of a deranged or mischievous Scottish Enlightenment view. It is this view that the FS is often a reaction to. For me the FS is partly harking back to Romanticism and other types of mumbo-jumbo. It also wants to place the intellectual at the centre of the universe.
    Post-Marxists may want to be a cross between a tragic poet and a philosopher king – this is the kind of stuff Marx mocked. It exists in some sense, fusions always exist. That does not mean there isn't a separate and identifiable Marxist tradition which exists independent of the FS or of PC and so on.
    Cross overs exists. However, they exist everywhere and always.

  5. You missed a great opportunity to discuss ideas of equity and the careful balance between government vs individual power which has found to make a fair and free society.

  6. Huh. Turns out I am completely culturally Marxist and so far as ive learned, totally Marxist too….lmao

  7. The "secret plot" idea is exactly why it is easy to see that Jordan Peterson is all about the same things the fascists have been.

  8. I can't tell if you are stupid or being intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps intellectually blind ?

    The reason I say this is because it is very obvious what that term refers to if one simply thinks about it. Marxism as you pointed out refers to the collection of Marxist world view. Cultural refers to Social trends and beliefs. Therefore, Cultural Marxism would be using Marx's world view in the context of Culture.

    I have read Marx's view in that regard. I also know he was inspired by Charles Fourier. The Marxist world view is in itself very one sided. It's psychologically rooted in Group Think and Class Focus.

    Someone holding the Marxist mentality is simply doomed to constantly be locked in a victim complex or percieve the world in Groups and Classes + the conflict between them.

    Marx saw women and minority groups as victims. Any majority group will generally have more power in a society as a default. To the cultural Marxist view these are all opressive villains.

    Feminists…Sociologists and SJWs…all products of Marxist world view or more accurately Marxist Cultural or Social view.

    Wether Marx's world view is historically valid but invalid by today is one topic. The issue is carrying on that world view as is in today's world is completely different.

  9. I now understand where Jordan Peterson got his ideas for his insane, paranoid, conservativeish rants on the left..

  10. "Cultural Marxism is trying to destroy western values! Ignore the fact that Marx's thoughts are part of western culture!"

  11. Good on you for doing this video! Just it wasn't Marxists (the original term was "Cultural Bolshevism"), it was Jews. The reason Hitler hated BOLSHEVISM in particular out of all left wing organizations was because its founding figure (Lenin) was Jewish! Hitler was paranoid and thought the left (and Marxism in the form of the USSR was the biggest form of it at the time) was just a vast Jewish conspiracy.That being said, fuck the Communists and their authoritarianism. NO GODS NO MASTERS!

  12. If you are antiMarxist, then you admit to being an anarchist. If you're an anarchist, then you have NO business demanding government punish anyone for you, you should go solve your own crimes. And if you're an anarchist, then you cannot claim being a "criminal" or "breaking the law" is a bad thing.
    The problem is rightwing cuntservatives are hypocritical scum: always demanding unlimited punishment of people unlucky to be held hostage in prison, always defending the unjust status quo of allowing people to breed new people but demanding the government give NO help to the new people, but then hypocritically demanding government to punish the new people for rightfully killing or stealing to survive or protesting.

  13. Karl Marx had the brains to admit the obvious that ALL antinatalists like myself know: We are each born into a world not of our own making.

  14. Bottom line: ANYBODY in ANY nation has the fucking right to lobby for Marxist laws, and NOT be told to "move to some other nation".

  15. Vladimir Lenin was a MUCH greater MUCH more courageous revolutionary than George Washington.
    The American colonists & slaveowners had to call on France to fight a war for them against England.

  16. More ALARMIST shit from scared little rightwing snowflakes so scared of someone saying ANYTHING good about Marxism or socialism or communism.

  17. ALL laws are collectivist. So, if ANY FUCKING RIGHTARD below calls anyone a "collectivist" as if that were a "negative" thing,
    then that rightard is an ANARCHIST. And that means, since ALL LAWS and hence ALL POLICE ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ALL SOLDIERS ALL MILITARIES are COLLECTIVIST, killing a cop or a soldier to gain power & freedom is a HEROIC POSITIVE thing.

  18. Wait, was it intentional that the movie poster you showed while talking about the Frankfurt school supposedly corrupting America with communism had an actor named McCarthy in it?

  19. Lenin and Trotsky were responsible for far more deaths than Stalin, they engaged in a complete cultural genocide of Slavic Orthodox Christian culture, over 10 million Russians alone were killed by 1924. Only apologists for this destructive ideology absolve Lenin and Trotsky and do not address the ethno-cultural conflict within the Communist Party which was the basis for the so-called Stalin Purges. As for the broad study of Marx and his ideas, I cannot think of one single idea of Marx that has any positive effect in the world. His ideas were either wrong or they simply appeal to the worst of human nature, time after time, and have only lead to destruction, mass murder and a failed model of economic development.

    It is also incompatible with nature, information theory and the steady decrease of entropy in on a planetary scale. The growth of complexity on Earth from the beginning, by the nature of information itself, every increase in complexity has resulted from environmentally selected preferred states from a maximally populated ensemble in each generation. This principle applies to molecular, biological and even economic growth, fully described by thermodynamic theory in an open system, and the observation that the rate of growth of information has produced a fixed rate of exponential growth almost unchanged for 4 billion years. Capitalism is the only system which naturally follows this principle, and across all times and systems. the successful organisms/species/economies always follow a Pareto distribution. Any attempt to centrally direct such a system inevitably leads to stagnation and extinction, which is where Marx and his failed ideas belong.

    It does not matter whether any particular theory on the right is accurate or not, the fact remains that the society has been ripped apart across the West, and the reaction to Trump is just one example. How is that a good thing?

  20. Reminds me of Kubricks eyes wide shut, lots of subtle details in that movie related to some of the topics covered here but specifically the password to the party was Fidelio

  21. Whole propaganda piece of a video in an attempt to rubbish the notion that cultural Marxism is real. News flash, it's legit. Also, you didn't even go into what a cultural Marxist is. The focal point of cultural Marxism is oppressor vs victim. Which clearly makes the ambitious well off white man an oppressor (sarcasm), and the poor sad criminality prone third world immigrant a victim.

    Essentially, cultural marxists are brainwashed by their NPC professors throughout academia.

  22. Cultural marxism was created by the elites to lead people away from true Marxist class consciousness. In effect blaming the white underclass for the corruption and tyranny of capitalist elites.

  23. There's no question that the Frankfurt School promoted ideas for undermining what they understood to be a kind of false consciousness. It wasn't a "secret plot," and people pushed back against it at the time. But a combination of partisans useful idiots in the academy preferred to pitch it as a salutary study rather than a motivated product of dismantling the ideas that sustained injustices in our system. The theorists themselves tended to see the system itself as fundamentally unjust. We've seen what the Frankfurt School and other Western Marxist sources have wrought in questioning to death much of the traditional morality and loyalty in Western societies, exposing it to a double standard of criticism that they never point leftward. In short, this video is either lame and disingenuous deflection or more useful idiocy.

  24. "A supposed link between the Frankfurt School and 60s counter culture." Are you at all familiar with Marcuse's involvement in 60s counter culture?

  25. So what do we call the sustained, focused intellectual attack on the foundations of Western society through "Critical Theory" and other devices by radical leftists with a mostly Marxist pedigree? It's not as if these guys didn't say they were doing that, going back to Gramsci (and, really, to Marx's buddy's Engels' term "false consciousness."

  26. The Talmud and its racist supremicism for its peoples/ customs/ practices outlines how to maintain an upper hand over non-group members, the Zohar–the noble god's chosen shall become its rulers, proofs of a conspiracy by John Robison about the 1700s order of the Illuminati invading freemasonry, the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, protocols of the learned elders of Zion, and the New World Order globalist conspiracy all have common themes of attacking existing Western civilization (Capitalism, free speech, representative republics–America) to cause its downfall by attacking or replacing its pillars with those that shall weaken then destroy it from within.

    What are these common themes?

    Planks of communism, critical theory (the opposite of critical thinking), elimination of morals and ethics by removal of Judaeo-Christian values/ morals/ ethics through pushing of atheism or secular ideologies, non-traditional female roles in the home and workplace to break apart the nuclear family, broken homes that have no father figure to enforce behavioral norms and reduce criminal infiltration of communities–gangs–drugs–theives, class warfare where rich families somehow stole their wealth from the poor rather than were smarter or more competent in their career pursuits of very high levels of achievement and societal responsibilities, inter-sectional divide and conquer, post modernism, changing the definitions of words to twist them to suit as weapons to accuse otherwise innocent people to take blame and hatred as oppressors, make mental disorders the norm and punish those who object to the institution of chaos/ backward logic/ inversion of reason.

    The planks of communism share some of the strategy and goals of the protocols of the learned elders of Zion, that have the same strategies and goals as the Illuminati.

    The deliberate dumbing down of America is/was a book by a lady whose father and grandfather belonged to the Yale Skull and Bones secret society that others have shown to be linked directly to the Bavarian Illuminati. Change agents came into the school system and pushed communistic / socialistic ideas to cause class warfare of the rich kids against their parents inducing a self-hatred that is undeserving. This was pushed by the globalist tycoons such as Carnegie and Rockefeller because they wanted the Anglo-establishment rich to form the leadership of a world parliament as outlined by Cecile John Rhodes such as the League of Nations and then when that failed, the United Nations.

    Norman Dodd had an investigator determine why it was that tax exempt charitable foundations were formed prior to income taxes–Federal Reserve central banking–internal revenue were instituted and found that they wanted to change society by provoking wars so as to disrupt society to bring about world government. Presidential executive orders supposedly were put in place that made these foundations operate the way that they were.

    Critics of this movement toward world government and globalism in general have coined the name for the group as "the party of Davos" as a replacement name for "the world money powers"–a term used to describe the people who advised and controlled Curtis B. Dall's exploited father in law (FDR – Franklin D. Roosevelt).

    It is safer to presume that some conspiracy theories that exactly fit are better to believe than a mainstream narrative that is full of contradictory logic and holes in the evidence, then look who is at the roots of these forces for societal change, and stop the harm that they are causing to the ordinary, unthinking, innocent citizenry who has been duped time and again by globalist schemes to fight in numerous wars that were planned decades in advance to further the agenda. It is time to look at our heroes to determine if they had a hand in the deaths of anyone or imprisonment of anyone they hoodwinked into a death spiral of government dependencies.

    Winston Churchill was likely under the thumb of the money powers and he supposedly was involved in WW1 Gallipoli campaign that saw a sizable death toll, as well as refusing the 10 or 20 or so offers of surrender by none other than Adolf Hitler, thereby prolonging WW2 by an unknown number of years. Recall that Churchill nearly went bankrupt and was going to lose his estate and home and servants, when suddenly someone bailed him out of his debts and in return what did Churchill do for his creditors? Perhaps he prolonged the war, got more countries embroiled than normally would have been?

    The solution starts in the repealing of international laws and banking treaties that enforce the debt-based monetary system that has Western society paying compounded yearly interest on ever growing debts. These debts are owed to the whoever has purchased the monetized debt of these nations. This debt is largely from the compounded interest rather than only from government overspending. This would bring about an end to the phony federal income taxes that were brought in to pay for the wars that we were all tricked into fighting when the entire thing was planned way in advance. Recall that US President Ronald Reagan conducted the Grace commission that found that all tax payer money went toward paying interest on the debt, government waste, and such, long before it could be used on useful, intended spending such as upkeep of existing infrastructure, law and order, education, and so on.

    Google >Ronald Reagan taxes government waste Grace commission nickel<

    "With two thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government."

  27. Cultural marxism doesn't mean anything (at least not to sociologists). They already have a word for it: Cultural Homogenisation. It means the exact same thing, except they like it and see it as natural development in a globalising word.. The people who don't agree with it, call it: Cultural Marxism.. They call it Marxism because it sounds scary.. Basically they just made up a whole new name for a term that already existed.

  28. This iisn't a plot to defame MArxism or PC culture. It's recognition of the fact that Post0modernist while now being opposed to Marxism, evolved from it. They started off as marxists and used his same reasoning he did but expanded on it beyond just economic classes. It uses the same ideals and thinking but expands on it. Marx fet]lt class was based on economics and wealth. cultural marxism uses the same train of thought and reasoning but says class is determined by social constructs, both real and assumed and that economic classes are just a result. The cultural marxist only oppose true marxism because it isn't far enough to them but at their roots they have the same mode of reasoning.

  29. Cultural Marxism is term invented by white supremacist/nationalist. They are the against the civil right movement and hate minority cultures believing them to be inferior. It’s a racist, belief in male supremacy, hate LBGT communities, and fear immigrants. The term itself is political correctness to confuse the masses instead of saying crude things I just written. All should be offended by this term.

  30. One of my personal fave Marxists is the Professor of Marxist studies, the one the only Prof Richard D. Wolff. @profwolff

  31. @04:32 Typical Right-Wing….using outright lies, slander, or word salad to hold up crackpot smear campaigns like a actual bludgeon to beat leftist with…the irony is as follows.

    1.Totalitarianism is a political concept where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to control every aspect of public and private life wherever, sound quite like Capitalism and it's predecessor Fuedalism/Imperialism too, And here I thought RW Guy was being objective or analytical…not just heavily biased and saying "Reeeeeeee"
    2. Hierarchy can be defined as government by ecclesiastical rulers, most Marxists wouldn't reject that ruling over one another is inherently wrong, since hardly anyone (except certain persons qualified) make the best decisions…or teachers, and to be scrutinised even their authority must be questioned or demonstrated at certain times…hardly totalitarian, may I suggest he use the word pragmatic instead of his made up definititon or use cases of totalitarian dictatorship-lite actions "exhibited" by the accused.
    3. He is wrong, misinformed, lying or conservative…and as such untrustworthy as fuck.

  32. Thank you, for the objective presentation of "American" political tosh. The accent helps your credibility. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

  33. I think you don't understand what Marxism Leninism is and should check out FinnishBolishivik. He gives a good defense and spoilers the death toll is if a fabrication.

  34. Think of cultural Marxism as the same resentment ideology that Marx spread: the bourgeoisie most be overthrown, etc, except worth cultural Marxism, instead of defining the bourgeoisie by economic class, you define it by race, religion, gender, and sexual identity. Other than that, it's the same idea: overthrow the privileged and prop up the marginalized.

  35. This series is pretty good but these definitions of Leninism and “Stalinism” are incorrect. Leninism is beyond Lenin just as Marxism is beyond Marx. Yes, Lenin is a big part of Leninism but it was an extension of Marxist methodology. Marxism is a science and it is the science of history and its laws. The Marxism of the time of Marx had its limitations. It never offered any real revolutionary strategy. Notice that the Manifesto mostly describes the history of capitalism up to the time it was written. Lenin was not a Leninist, he was a Marxist who theorized a revolutionary strategy and lead the people to implement that theory. Leninism overcame the limitations of what we would call Classical Marxism, but we don’t scrap Marxism just because it was limited just as we don’t scrap Newton for also having limits. The science which we refer to that overcame these limitations we refer to as Marxism-Leninism. Stalin didn’t just feel like using the images of Marx and Lenin. Stalin was a very serious Marxist, albeit a very flawed and limited one. On that note “Stalinism” isn’t real. Yes, it refers to what you’re talking about but the history of socialism is so warped by the west that sometimes it’s dfficult to tell truth from propaganda and I don’t want to get too into that. “Stalinism” is effectively a cold warrior term used to smear Marxists as “totalitarians” who want some superstate to rule the world. Also, socialism in one country isn’t unique to Stalin, it began with Lenin. Did Stalin develop it further and put it into practice? Sure, but that’s not “Stalinism”, that’s Leninism. Now, of course, Marxism-Leninism has its limitations too like the lack of understanding that class struggle continues under socialism, but I won’t go too into that. Otherwise this series is pretty good. This bit just irked me. For further reading I suggest philosopher J. Moufawad-Paul’s book Continuity and Rupture.

  36. Tankie scum, here. I don’t know if you’ve changed your mind since this video, but I recommend that you take it upon yourself to read some Lenin, Stalin, and specifically accounts of these administrations that contradict the bourgeois narrative. (Marxist historian Grover Furr is one source, for example.) I think you’ll find that a lot of what you said in your statement on them will be shown to be either incorrect or at least controversial. I’m not saying you have to believe they were great people and that Marxism-Leninism is an immortal science or anything, but you should at least be willing to entertain a different view of these things for the sake of accuracy.

    I say this for a couple of reasons. One is that Lenin is the one who believed that his theory was a practical extension of Marxism, especially in the era of monopoly capitalism, which was his main area of focus. The transition to communism is not considered definite by most serious Marxists, and we just as often make the claim that it will be a choice between socialism or fascism, or socialism or barbarism, which amounts to approximately the same. Lenin’s vanguard was the idea that professional revolutionaries who understood Marxist theory as a science should lead the revolution because they would be equipped to organize and direct social trends like spontaneous strikes and subversive media. In other words, they are meant to secure the revolution from bourgeois attacks.

    Stalin only repeated Lenin’s sentiment. He did not change anything by creating the phrase “Marxism-Leninism”. Lenin was simply not the one who gave it such a designation. All of Lenin’s statements about his theory being an extension are echoed by Stalin, who merely followed through with it. His administration did not kill millions of people and did not in general do anything all that surprising as far as the course of the theory was concerned. ML theory was designed to advance the productive forces if they were not advanced and was designed to be a theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which the USSR incontrovertibly was, at least during Stalin’s leadership.

    This is not to say there are no valid critiques of Stalin. He was supportive of and voted with the party to roll back women’s rights and gay rights, and that is condemnable, and recently declassified soviet files suggest that his administration was probably responsible for more deaths than was strictly necessary, but it was not anywhere near millions or even one million. That is bourgeois nonsense. The population grew under his tenure as did life expectancy quite dramatically, his administration also ended famine, and you do not get those kinds of results from a government that kills and repressed people willy-nilly. You just don’t.

  37. Wow. With nearly three years of hindsight now and the term "cultural Marxism" becoming only more prevalent in that time period, the observation of Nazi Germany using the term "cultural Bolshevism" seems really prescient. It's the same thing dressed up for a more modern audience, just like Richard Spencer in his three piece suit instead of a Klan robe. The most frightening part of the whole thing is just how good the radical right has gotten about adapting its ideas for the public it wants to consume them, making them more palatable once the more overt forms of bigotry become unacceptable in society. Watching this especially just coming from your "What was Liberalism" series, it really does seem like Liberalism has to inevitably change into something else at some point, and more often than not it goes for fascism because it's spent centuries aggressively insisting that socialism is untenable.

  38. If the modem idea of groups divided by social advantages should be called cultural Marxism because it's a class theory based on culture, then what should we call the idea of alpha/beta groups divided by masculinity? Sexual Marxism?

  39. id on't know if it's good modding or what but the comments are void of trolling and countertrolling and so forth and i have mixed feeling about that. i don't want to feel disappointed at the absence of conflict but i don't feel enough conviction that civility is the norm to comfortably allow myself relief or hope

  40. Cultural fascism : the term that I just made up meaning anything that doesn't respect people's identities (like calling a person a man because they have male chromosomes but also has a vagina and for all practical purposes looks like a woman…aka, intersex people), or wanting the U.S. to take over the world by being involved in unnecessary wars, making everything as capitalistic as possible or just a little more capitalistic (no more Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability, social security, etc.), wanting to divide people by identities (immigrants from some countries are welcome but not others, etc.).

  41. I hope you have more videos deconstructing Cultural Marxism. This felt like a brief overview without really delving into where it falls apart.

  42. Problem being, Marx isn’t interested in culture. Marxism is applied equally to every culture in existence. It’s as equally applicable in India as it is in Indonesia. In fact, in a classless society, wouldn’t culture break down too? Isn’t culture just a justification to venerate the class who doesn’t need to work at the expense of those who need to? Workers become criminalized and criminals become legitimized. Working class criminals get raped and white collar criminals get their liberties curtailed. Wow! I wish that I was rich! That way, I could commit fraud without being raped or shanked! I might even get conjugal visits! Imagine getting 🤬 instead of getting raped‼️My intense hatred for capitalism can only be matched by you know, Marxism‼️

  43. I knew Jordan Peterson's post-modern neo-marxism(Cultural Marxism) was not original but man I did not expect it to such a blatant copy-pasta.

  44. Because of a failure to do his due diligence in research he makes it sound like some sort of leap in logic to assert the between the Frankfurt School and the subversion of western culture and the US. It is not. The plan, system and methodologies were placed in the literature long ago by the usual suspects and the execution of the plan are verifiable through academic narratives published as well as accompanying changes educationally, politically, and societally. This video is naive at best and propagandist at worst.

  45. Yeah, I think he is being fairly intellectually dishonest in this video. He dismisses known facts such as high prevalence of extreme left leaning professors in our universities and the affects it has on our citizens. Art, media, education all have impacts on our minds and how we frame things, especially at a young age. While it may not be a linked group it certainly exists as many individuals acting on similar beliefs which are likely marxist and far left in origin. We could call it PC culture, we could call it cultural marxism but that is simply arguing semantics. -1 video review Please provide a better argument.

  46. Look up the original sources he mentions. Don't take his snarky tone as an indication that it's all bullshit. He offered zero counter arguments and failed to grasp why these "unrelated" concepts fall under this umbrella. Don't be a fucking sheep. There's a reason this is one of the top suggestions Google provides you. You're being spoon fed "safe" ideas. Grow up and look up the original sources.

  47. Labour theory of Value predated Marxist adoption, Adam Smith developed on it and Karl Marx himself credited Benjamin Franklin in his 1729 essay entitled "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" as being "one of the first" to advance the theory.

  48. hey can you bring back this adorable character for part 5? or do i have to wait until march 2020? (because i will HAPPILY wait)

  49. I don't like how the term "political correctness" is a catch phrase used to attack the left or anyone who has some progressive political stances these days. Political correctness simply refers to the current political line. Back in the 1950's and before the civil rights and feminist movements etc conservatives and right wingers and especially white/ethno nationalists/racists would have been considered "politically correct" because they pretty much were content with the status quo and reactionary to any political and social progress. Politically correct usually refers these days to a leftist mostly a liberal because liberals more or less have most of what they want where as what conservatives and right wingers have had most of what they want amended, overturned and or gotten rid of entirely.

  50. You didn't really offer any reasons as to why you're so dismissive about the links between political correctness, cultural marxism, and the frankfurt school.

    Cultural Marxism began with Lenin. Karl was all about the economic Marxism.

    You laid it on very thick with your ridiculing tone when it came to dismissing these connections. Also, why did you start playing music at that point in the video? And why was it necessary to describe someone as right-wing as though that was reason enough to be dismissive.

    Do you think that there are no such things as conspiracies?

    How do you think millions of people have died under communism without the existence of conspiracies. Do we just throw that word out there as a cue to trigger a ridicule response amongst all the well-trained followers of mainstream media (cue ominous background music).

  51. Minor correction: I feel like i should stress that the difference you put between lenin and marx seems like an artificial one: marx certainly did not advocate "waiting around for the working class to take power". He predicted that the working class would take power as a result of the contradictions of capitalism and the resulting class conflict however it's also clear that he saw his own role in building a working class party to take that power and a revolution as a part of that process. Hence his work in the first international and party building in germany in particular, the specific clarification/revision to the communist manifesto after the paris commune about the state, and his summary quote: "the philosophers have thus far interpreted the world, the object is to change it".

    Lenin's building was a lot more about the nuts and bolts of building that party and on the specifics of a revolution that arguably is just a natural development of marx (a lot gets made about being conspiratorial and underground but that was very clearly referring to organising in a country like tsarist russia, which is pretty demonstrable since he wasn't advocating that the communist parties, in britain for example, should go underground in the early comintern days.

    Stalin calling his governance and organising "Marxist-Leninism" was IMO far more about tying himself to both names than tying lenin to marx (specifically to combat the left opposition under trotsky, who called themselves bolshevik-leninist for similar reasons).

  52. this guy's video only serves as proof that he is absolutely a brainwashed-mind-conditione marxist moron.The same go for all marxist dupes who have been conditioned by marxist ideology/pc propaganda to deny its very existence. This is the longevil, destructive , and bloody murderous history of marxism. A history that all marxist dupes both deny and lie about. That blood isnt really blood, and even if it was its not marxism(utopian-fantasy-ignorance-of=weak-minded-low-intelligence-fools) its any who opposes 'US's" fault. This is precisely why all marxists must be annihilated.

  53. Am I the only one here who needs to say that Stalinism did not exists and is just one of the ramification of marxism-leninism?

  54. You have to stop and think for once if all the horrors of Stalinism reek of propaganda. Face it: all of what you said and probably think of Stalin is Cold War mythology. As long as there's a wedge between you and true Stalinism, capitalistic propaganda will keep socialists fractured and controlled. One day you'll have to dig deeper into root historical sources and admit that you have perpetuated a lie to your viewership.

  55. Lenin did not completely dispute Karl Marx' ideas. Karl Marx thought that for communism to happen the society hade to be industrialized (like for seriously good reasons). Russia was nothing but industrialized during the October revolution. So Lenin hade this idea that they would force rapid industrialization in Russia as well as teach the people about communism. This was to prepare the people for the forced communist revolution (which never happened).
    While Communism may be a bit naive, Leninism is about as naive as it gets.

  56. Way to breeze right over the actual meaning and how its destroying the country. THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING WHAT I SAID THAN YOUR WATERED DOWN NON VERSION OF REALITY. Way to keep ppl uninformed and stupid

  57. Didn't Marx say that in order to set up a communist state ,you need to first get rid of all existing social settings?
    If he did, is it really that absurd to suspect that counter cultural movements may have Marxist roots? (Counter cultures may be good or bad, that isn't the issue here! I just feel that these forces opposing established culture really do spawn from Marxism!)

    I'm not an American, so don't really care much for the left or right wing nonsense .. I just had this doubt and wanted a clarification!
    Thank u!

  58. I think that the word "Cultural" marks a fascistic origin for the term CM, Fidelio, huh. Mussolini and Hitler both helped put the word culture into more common parlance. As i think of it now, the word often seems to occur as a label for "degenerate" groups, Counter Culture, Culture of Violence, etc.

  59. Cultural Marxism: it doesn't matter what your contributions are as an individual; if in any hierarchy, you share an identity with the majority, "you're a parasite".

    Leftists: "ThIs WoRd TrIgGeRs Me"

  60. If I'm getting this right, "cultural Marxism" is a vague catch all idea the current power system is using as a propaganda tool to actively discourage authentic dissent. What is truly laughable and a little bit frightening is this idea that actual freedom — i.e. freedom to live as one chooses, freedom to dissent, freedom of belief, etc — is "undermining traditional American values", do the people proclaiming this idea an "evil" even understand what they are saying? They are saying the founding ideals of America are evil and must be done away with!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *