Lord Somber sends an article from his side of the pond and there are just too many things to comment on.
Now I’m going to say straight up that there are things I don’t agree with in this article and comments. Someone gets into the very complex Jewish thing – which Jews? Someone mentions Breitbart but I have issues with him.
However, what is quite clear and we of the loosely non-left, herded cats coalition can agree is that there are things the left have done, they’ve been called out on it, it’s been written about by many, including me and somewhere down the track, at least the independent thinker will start to stroke the chin and think hmmmmm – there might just be something in this.
When a leftist does stop long enough to answer a charge, it’s quite interesting how he goes about it and this is why the part of the article on the Frankfurt School piqued my interest. I’ll hand over to the author now:
Due to the work of writers like the late Andrew Breitbart, many conservatives now have at least a passing familiarity with the Frankfurt School and their influence. Leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center don’t want liberals to know this history, however, as evidenced by their disinformation campaign that pretends that conservatives who bring up the Frankfurt School are crazy racists who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Typical of this ‘nothing to see here and you’re a nut-job for even looking’ tactic is a piece from Red Phoenix (described as ‘the newspaper of the American party of Labor’) which defines cultural Marxism as ‘a meaningless phrase used to signal that the writer or speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about’, and then says:
“First, to understand cultural Marxism as a phrase is nearly impossible. The phrase itself is meaningless. Next time you find yourself in a discussion where your partner invokes cultural Marxism, ask them to define exactly what that means. Most people don’t even attempt to answer. Those that do give a definition that has nothing to do with Marxism. They may be totally convinced that cultural Marxism is destroying their society, to the point of obsession, yet they stammer and hesitate when asked for a coherent definition.”
So, without stammer or hesitation: Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxism advocated by the Frankfurt School of philosophers such as Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse that focuses on cultural factors as agents for social change, as opposed to the traditional Marxist view that focused on economic factors.
I’m going to zero in on one aspect only:
cultural Marxism as ‘a meaningless phrase used to signal that the writer or speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about’
Analyze that statement. Firstly, the assertion – it’s a meaningless phrase. Why? How? On what basis is it meaningless? Where is the definition of Marxism which precludes cultural marxism? It’s not provided. It’s asserted in an authoritative manner as if it is a given and that anyone knowing Marxism would know that – the esoteric argument – adepts only please.
There’s very much an aspect of a priori in the way the leftist argues. We’re fools for even thinking the two words can go together. Yet we’ve answered that:
Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxism advocated by the Frankfurt School of philosophers such as Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse
Those men were Marxists. The Frankfurt School began with Marxism in its name. Like all on the left though, they splintered and thus one faction – the People’s Front of Judaea, mocks anything said by the Judaean People’s Front as not being canonical. So, because their own internecine fighting and split hairs consume them, then when we ride roughshod over their niceties by calling the whole lot of the bastards Marxist, they are stunned by the ignorance they see in it. Which type of Marxist, they ask.
Even if it is essentially true. They’re all trying to create a dystopia [Stage 4] in order to lead to a utopia [Stage 5].
to signal that the writer or speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about
Says who? On what authority does the person who let that trip off the tongue say we don’t know what we’re talking about? We specify, quote from Marcuse and Adorno, from Benjamin, we’re specific. Where is the specific this person provides in gainsaying that?
There is none. The whole of that leftist snippet has no substance. Now multiply that as many times as is necessary to fill a tome on society. It’s drivel. And the specific I quote to back that is that three people who were Marxist are named above.
This is the single most malignant thing leftists do – come in with the seemingly authoritative dismissal and the invocation of the buzzword – racist, homophobic – and that serves as a substitute for debate. They’re not interested in real debate, they’re only interested in influencing the gullible.
We’re just an occasional diversion they feel has little traction. They have an organization behind them.
Filed under: Politics & economics