Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by DwayneGAnd, Jan 17, 2018.
True, I am highly prejudiced in this regard.
I also enjoyed Goodbye Lenin.
Nobody describes themselves as an idiot either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
There's really nothing wrong with the term (other than the fact that it has no real link to Marxism, so the term is a bit of a misnomer in itself). It's simply that its meaning has become utterly warped and no one knows anymore if you're using the Frankfurt definition, the Right Wing or the Neo-nazi meaning.
So I don't necessarily blame you for finding it's usage funny, but that doesn't really change the fact that it's a real term.
Hassknecht got the gist of it though.
The fact that Global Warming is a huge misnomer, doesn't prove that the concept itself is unfounded.
You're attacking the name, not the concept. The name is rather irrelevant to the meaning we ascribe to it.
We were more exposed to the horrors of fascism/natsoc than to communism, and as a result our propaganda was split in fighting both fascism & communism during the cold war era.
On the surface, it's also easy to argue that wanting "fair" redistribution of wealth and "equality" for all are things worth striving for. Except that those things are inherently impossible to achieve. You can't redistribute wealth in a way that's fair, and you can't make everyone equal while remaining just to the individual.
It's also very clear that the vast majority of people here have absolutely no clue about the true cost in human lives that communism had in Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, etc, whereas the Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc are something brought up ad nauseam.
I'm more attacking the fact that people who talk about "Cultural Marxism" are trying to create a red scare about progressiveness.
You can have all the issues you want with progressive ideology, but criticise the ideology itself, rather than labelling it "Marxism" to get across your point.
It's kind of the fancier way to say "communism" without looking like a cartoon caricature in practice, as long I've seen.
A friend of mine said, "America's reaction to communism was murder, suppression of liberty, warmongering, and imperialism across the globe. The Soviet Union mostly kept it all at home."
I should hope that you reminded him of the Soviets pushing into Afghanistan, the invasion of Finland and the other Baltic states before Germany declared war if you want to go further back, splitting Poland with the Third Reich, and then seizing pretty much all of Eastern Europe and holding onto it afterwards.
"Kept it at home"... Give me a break.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. The horrible crackdowns, murders, and secret police in Eastern Europe were in the Soviet Union.
...Soviet-Russia was the Soviet-Union's founder; it was most certainly calling most of the shots up until it all started falling apart. To say that Russia isn't the Soviet Union, then...
You're kind of missing my point that the horrible atrocities in Eastern Europe are in the Soviet Union.
>Not Eastern European, but: Afghanistan
On another note, just because the USSR annexed various countries doesn't necessarily mean that the takeovers and any other actions leading up to their formal annexation were "in" the Soviet Union. Imperialism was also mentioned in your friend's statement; just because they happened to be neighbors doesn't make that particular aspect any different.
Pretty much. At its core, "cultural marxism" as an assessment isn't all that wrong since the theoretical foundations of certain progressive ideologies are heavily based on Marxism, but the intention of "cultural marxism" as it's used now is just RED SCARE.
Tbh, I believe every political theory is a pipe dream. In practice, nothing truly works. Even as a socialist myself, I understand it's not a perfect system.
The problem with Communism is that in theory, it's a nice idea, but will get abused... Even accidentally.
We tend to favour different people/groups, even if we aren't aware of it.
Overall mostly negative. I believe in the use of mixed economies and specific socialist policies like health care as they are proven to be more beneficial overall to the population had they been private. Criticisms of socialist policies or programs being abused can almost always be deflected by the fact that reforms to ensure abuse is minimized and that people as a whole benefit more than a few bad actors which are irrelevant. As for costs? Taxes, if you can afford billion dollar weapons and aircraft for your armies then you can afford nationalized health care and etc.
But full communism/socialism? Nah, historically its failed, it hurts creative enterprise/art, lack of innovation, starvation and etc. It works if you are a poor third world country or live in a pre WW2 world where its feasible. But its simply not workable in the modern world.
Everyone is unique, but cherishing your local culture is racist, especially if you're Caucasian.
Everyone is free, but preferring a partner within your own race is racist, especially if you're Caucasian.
Everyone is equal, but holding people to the same standard for a job because lives depend on it (say in the armed forces or fire fighting) is sexist.
Minorities cannot be racist, suggesting anything else makes you a nazi.
We live in a time where many north american universities, the paragons of research and education, have decided that "it's ok to be white" is a racial slur. But "black lives matter" is fine and dandy.
Canada just voted in new legislation that effectively gives an equal rights tribunal of people the right to judge you without having to rely on law or precedent, but merely on feelings and perception.
There's enough reasons to be "scared" and it's really no wonder that people have started reacting to it. Our freedom and identity are under attack and it's not even by some foreign power, conspiracy or even distinct ideology. It's primarily under attack by ourselves.
If you have a better word for this than "cultural marxism", then please share so I can start using that. But please don't say it's progressivism or progressiveness, that's way too broad and inaccurate. I'm a european centrist with a libertarian streak. I've voted for same sex marriage & euthanasia in my country. I'm progressive.
That's just "anti establishment", though. And part of that overreacting to changing flows in population and general thought
What part is anti-establishment? It has already become an ingrained part of the establishment in many places, so I don't quite get what you're getting at?
I'd call it what it is, poststructuralist intersectionalism. I guess the problem with that is that it doesn't sound evil and menacing enough for some.
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either, no.
But yes, it does quite aptly cover the issues that many people refer to as cultural marxism.
Anti-establishment is a cool buzzword for those who are 'too woke', for the regular plebes to understand, much like Beths 'IMMURZUN'.
Its like hey, bring down the government so we can have anarchy, anarchy woo, anarchy rules, yea bro.
Political Correctness was also very prevalent in Maos China and pretty much any other socialist regime.
For example it was forbiden to do any research on sunspots by chinese scientists, since Mao was constantly compared to the Sun, and even hinting at the sun having spots, could get anyone in trouble since it was seen as controversial. And there have been many cases where certain 'words' could get you in jail or even killed, particuilarly during the cultural revolution in China.
Political Corectness has become a cancer in western societies and it pretty much is a movement which goes in many ways against free speech at this point - even if the people supporting it most probably aren't fully aware of it, believing they are doing something for the greater good and protecting people.
Absolutely, as vague as Marx was about his definition of an ideal 'communist' society and how it should look like, the utopian idea of it doesn't feature actuall hierarchies or governments. Why should it? With the 'ideal' communist society everyone is an equal and shares everything as far as the means of production is concerend, which can go so far that communist societies should have no concept of possession at all.
Now, this idea might sound interesting on paper - as Hass said, but I think I personaly wouldn't even want to live in such a society, the communist utopia. Why? Think about it, if you put this to the extreme it means there is 1. no concept of individualism 2. no form of property/possession what so ever. The collective is everything. I am not sure, I think it was Robert A. Heinlein, you know the author of Starship Troopers, who described the arachnids as the perfect communist-like society living in some form of hivemind. And I think that's pretty much what a communist utopia tries to aim at.
And this is pretty much why communism as utopian view, can't work, it tries to change human nature and completely ignores biological facts.